Technologically Advanced: Not Necessarily Violent

Within the UFO community (and any who take time to wonder about the 'what if' of extraterrestrial life) there is a constant debate. This debate is frustrating, long-lived and tired. Yet, as with all discussions of the unknown, it is one which will continue to live on and frustrate a great many generations.

That debate, in essence, is one of extraterrestrial intention and, more specifically, temperament. In what way do they witness and perceive a species like ours; so young in its technological infancy?

Technology: If there is one requirement for active engagement in 'galactic discourse' it is technological advancement. This advancement would be equitable with attaining ones full drivers license; now old and learned enough to partake in the adult world. But how do we know when we are 'old enough', when can we be trusted? It is this question which brings us to the point of this thread: Are advanced species war-mongering cultures desiring nothing more then conquest and resource...or, are we simply extrapolating our limited perception of our species onto the galactic scale?

My answer to this question falls to the 'restricted perception' portion of the argument. We, as a species, operate on a global scale. Our technology and advancement would be infantile on the galactic --such as the scale would require in its vastness of distance alone. Because we are in our infancy we have, relatively speaking, very little room with which to stretch our arms.

We quarrel and fight based on the scale we can perceive, and that scale leaves less and less room for our collective ambition. If our species is to enter the galactic scale then we would need to overcome and grow from our infancy without the very real threat of destroying ourselves in the process. And it is here where my argument is seeded.

If we must overcome violent and greedy tendencies in order to advance into the next scale then it would seem that other species would have to as well. Those already within the galactic scale would seem to have 'survived' the birthing pains of advancement. Senseless war and violence would, out of necessity, be put aside...if not then it would seem plausible that, based upon the extrapolation of our global scale, they would have simply wiped themselves off of their respective planets.

This is not to say that some, or even our own, would not be hungry for conquest. However, if the majority of species have attained access to this scale through the tossing out of those tendencies then perhaps the collective majority could react swiftly and justly in order to ensure the safety and equality of all 'galactic players' ('The Day The Earth Stood Still' comes to mind when writing that last bit).

In short: Advanced species have, through their advancement and reach, survived the possible self-destruction which the global scale lends to itself. It is my opinion that the majority of species which have broken free from these limitations of scale are not bent on the destruction of other emerging species for this very reason.

I have contributed my thoughts to an ongoing debate and ask you to do so as well. Let us bring this discussion to ATS and let us do so in an adult fashion...keep the personal attacks and sarcastic one-liners to a different time and thread.

During the cold war we barely avoided a nuclear war in between the USA and the CCCP. Everyone knows the consequences the use of nukes has. And yet...The USA invaded Irak, are playing around with Iran and North Korea.

Wars will continue down history, even after we've colonized other planets.

Why is it necessary that a species is confronted with auto destruction anyways?

Of course violent space empires are possible.

Originally posted by DarkSide
During the cold war we barely avoided a nuclear war in between the USA and the CCCP. Everyone knows the consequences the use of nukes has. And yet...The USA invaded Irak, are playing around with Iran and North Korea.

Yes, and 'playing' would seem to be the right choice of words. As twisted as it seems we are, for a lack of better words, playing about with war and pushing boundries.

However, if these wars were to turn into true intent on destruction...then I feel that we would 'self-govern' ourselves off of our planet and out of any possible galactic scale. During the cold-war there was little to no intent on destruction. The US and the USSR were playing a dangerous game of establishment and rapid, competing advancement.

Originally posted by DarkSide
Wars will continue down history, even after we've colonized other planets.

Why is it necessary that a species is confronted with auto destruction anyways?

It would seem that in order to effectively colonize other planets that some degree of planetary cooperation would need to first occur. By entering a scale as large as our galaxy we would surley flounder and fail if our planet did not, to some degree, cooperate as a whole.

This threat of floundering would bring about aggression and cooperation would cease to exist...resulting in either our destruction or our failure to enter the galactic scale at that time.

Either destruction of ourselves or of the possibility of 'emergence' at that point in time: Both outcomes would seem to be a form of innate self-governing which the emergence into the larger scale would seem to demand.

Originally posted by DarkSide
Of course violent space empires are possible.

This is true. But both size of scale and a plausible majority of non-violent 'galactic empires' (formed as a result of what I feel is required to reach this scale) would most likely put down, or at least moot, the consequences and ramifications of those 'violent empires'.

Thanks for your contribution

Originally posted by spines
However, if these wars were to turn into true intent on destruction...then I feel that we would 'self-govern' ourselves off of our planet and out of any possible galactic scale. During the cold-war there was little to no intent on destruction. The US and the USSR were playing a dangerous game of establishment and rapid, competing advancement.

The CCCP was a much greater threat than miserable, petty states such as extremist iran or megalomaniac NK that the USA would crush without using an atom bomb.

It would seem that in order to effectively colonize other planets that some degree of planetary cooperation would need to first occur.

Not necessarily. I believe the USA will be the first to establish a permanent base on Mars, after that it will happen naturaly. They could establish a base on the moon but at the moment there is no real need to since there is no space travel.

By entering a scale as large as our galaxy we would surley flounder and fail if our planet did not, to some degree, cooperate as a whole.

No, a local scale of say 50 light years. It would take eons to colonize the whole galaxy. Say we colonized a 100 planets in the local sector, these colonies could rebel against earth, or there could be a "blackout" (cessation of interstellar travel for whatever reasons" and the settlers would become independant with a different culture and goals than Earth. Anything is possible. There is no rule that says x species must unite and colonize the galaxy and become peaceloving.

This is true. But both size of scale and a plausible majority of non-violent 'galactic empires' (formed as a result of what I feel is required to reach this scale) would most likely put down, or at least moot, the consequences and ramifications of those 'violent empires'.

500 years ago europeans discovered an colonized north america. This feat was probably just as challenging to them as a planet colonization is to us, technlogy wise. Yet we still managed to exterminate the natives and create a state that can't exaclty be said to have good intentions.

Thanks for your contribution

Well, intelligent posts are quite rare in this section, it would be a shame to miss out on them

Originally posted by DarkSide
The CCCP was a much greater threat than miserable, petty states such as extremist iran or megalomaniac NK that the USA would crush without using an atom bomb.

True, yet our both having the ability to use nukes kept us from destroying each other. We did, however, seem to play around with 'flare ups' and by indirectly stabbing at each other by funding and supporting the enemies of their state.

It was, in my opinion, a bit of a 'game' for each power involved and had no real threat of escalating into nuclear war. Neither of us wanted to risk it because we both were aware of automated retaliation.

In short: It was an understood stance of non-direct-involvement. Joint annihilation is a victory for no one.

Originally posted by DarkSide
Not necessarily. I believe the USA will be the first to establish a permanent base on Mars, after that it will happen naturally. They could establish a base on the moon but at the moment there is no real need to since there is no space travel.

Yes, perhaps I was not clear. The first steps of our species delving into space would most likely happen on the individual scale. Certain countries and organizations could set up exploration and research bases without the need of 'global cooperation'.

However, when entering the galactic level...I feel that a planetary level of cooperation would be necessary. Major conflicts and non-cooperation on Earth would lead to a shaky and steady death of our 'galactic exploration/colonization'.

After all, you can't deal with the issues of a great distance before those of a few thousand miles are settled.

Originally posted by DarkSide
No, a local scale of say 50 light years. It would take eons to colonize the whole galaxy.

I never meant to imply colonizing the entirety of our galaxy. When I say 'galactic scale' I mean that we are now a species who must coexist and presumably interact with other species who are as advanced/intelligent as we would be at that time (if not more so).

We would no longer be countries coexisting on a single planet, but rather a species coexisting within a single galaxy.

I hope that helps to clarify my meaning behind 'galactic scale'.

Originally posted by DarkSide
Say we colonized a 100 planets in the local sector, these colonies could rebel against earth, or there could be a "blackout" (cessation of interstellar travel for whatever reasons" and the settlers would become independant with a different culture and goals than Earth. Anything is possible.

Ah, and our colonization of the local sector would, most likely, be done exclusively by ourselves. We would not yet be interacting with other species on a galactic level.

If the conflict associated with the colonies (in whatever form it presents itself) effectively stops our exploration of the galaxy then once again we have self-governed ourselves into not participating on the galactic scale.

If the colonies are 'cut-off' from Earth and effectively become their own governing power unto themselves then I suppose one of two outcomes would present itself:

a) The colony is able to sustain itself and is allowed to do so in a peaceful coexistence between the colony and Earth. There are now two separate planets which hold the same species. Each planet governs itself and, as an independent power, either further explores our galaxy or chooses to keep to itself. Either way a 'peaceful' solution has allowed for our species to continue to attain 'galactic scale'.

or

b) The colony and Earth do not settle differences of power and a 'war' ensues. This type of war would most likely separate power on Earth as well. With the preoccupation of war and power struggle, the further exploration would most likely cease (that is if we don not blow ourselves away in the process). In this situation it would seem like a non-peaceful solution once again self-governed us into not attaining 'galactic scale'.

Originally posted by DarkSide
There is no rule that says x species must unite and colonize the galaxy and become peaceloving.

I am not sure about that. I can not call my opinion a rule but I believe that the 'pre' and very beginning of galactic exploration/colonization would be the means which ensure that the majority of species who attain this level of advancement and reach would be 'peaceful'.

As I stated in previous posts and also just above: If conflict and aggression remain prevalent within a species (like it seems to now with ours) then attaining this reach which is required for participation on the 'galactic scale' would seem highly unlikely.

In my opinion, a species must coexist with itself in order for the very foundation of this type of exploration/colonization to take hold and work. Those which remain aggressive would seem to falter and fail. This process would, hopefully, allow for a majority of non-aggressive violence.

Originally posted by DarkSide
500 years ago europeans discovered an colonized north america. This feat was probably just as challenging to them as a planet colonization is to us, technlogy wise. Yet we still managed to exterminate the natives and create a state that can't exaclty be said to have good intentions.

That is a very good point and I thank you for allowing me to elaborate a bit more.

If the Europeans were to have discovered a society which was as advanced as they were then they were then I am sure the pages of history would have been written much differently. Perhaps trade and relations would have been the result rather than exploitation and extermination.

Originally posted by DarkSide
Well, intelligent posts are quite rare in this section, it would be a shame to miss out on them

Don't make me blush.

Originally posted by spines
True, yet our both having the ability to use nukes kept us from destroying each other. We did, however, seem to play around with 'flare ups' and by indirectly stabbing at each other by funding and supporting the enemies of their state.

It was, in my opinion, a bit of a 'game' for each power involved and had no real threat of escalating into nuclear war. Neither of us wanted to risk it because we both were aware of automated retaliation.

In any case I don't think we would have reached our current technological level if the cold war had not happened. And we would have been on the moon much later, etc.

In short: It was an understood stance of non-direct-involvement. Joint annihilation is a victory for no one.

But for how long? We know the USA are developping a ballistic shield and they want to extend it to Europe and Japan. So basically that will eliminate any chance of nuclear retaliation if the USA decide to nuke some part of the "third world". The only time nukes were used was when only 1 country had them , the next unbalance will be when 1 country is immune to them.

And I wouldn't exclude the possibility of insane leaders, who prefer to start a nuclear war than to lose their power.

We would no longer be countries coexisting on a single planet, but rather a species coexisting within a single galaxy.

I hope that helps to clarify my meaning behind 'galactic scale'.

It does, and I agree with the fact that we will "become one". But is it necessarily a good thing? Without competitors our will to innovate and expand will be slowed down. So the next eventuality is that if we come across another space faring species we will start a technological race with them.

If the colonies are 'cut-off' from Earth and effectively become their own governing power unto themselves then I suppose one of two outcomes would present itself

I find Asimov's universe very interesting when it comes to colonization. There have been numerous wars in human history, over diverse causes, I don't think colonization will stop the trend.

...the means which ensure that the majority of species who attain this level of advancement and reach would be 'peaceful'... If conflict and aggression remain prevalent within a species (like it seems to now with ours) then attaining this reach which is required for participation on the 'galactic scale' would seem highly unlikely....a species must coexist with itself in order for the very foundation of this type of exploration/colonization to take hold and work...

But your assuming that a species will always tend to act for the survival of the species. Group selection. I don't agree, numerous decisions have been taken by so many politicians for there own advantage that put certain populations into danger, and done so knowingly. Also due to this obsession with individual interests, we are short-sighted. The best example is that we know that our system is destroying the environment yet we continue for the economic benefits it has in the present. We only learn by error it seems, and over time we forget and repeat the error.

If the Europeans were to have discovered a society which was as advanced as they were then they were then I am sure the pages of history would have been written much differently. Perhaps trade and relations would have been the result rather than exploitation and extermination.

Good point. Native south and central Americans had lots of potential ( I hear the Mayans weren't bad at mathematics and astronomy and also built the biggest cities of Precolumbian history). But due to a number of factors (poor military technology, religious beliefs, lack of horsepower, no immune resistance to germs brought by the spanish) were beaten by a very small contingent of invaders.

But if we met a similar civilisation, I guess they would indeed trade away, but at the first opportunity one might take the advantage. It just becomes interstellar politics at this point.

I imagine both species will have a group of dissidents that will hate the other species for religious or racial ideas...

Originally posted by spines
Because we are in our infancy we have, relatively speaking, very little room with which to stretch our arms.

You said that we are in our infancy several times in the text. Why? Take some ancient Greek and show him around modern day New York and he would think us to be gods.

Personally I wonder whether aliens really think that much. I mean, why should they care? If they find a world populated by a sentient creatures capable of mass communication, they could just drop by to say "hello, you're not alone and there are many more like us out there, good luck finding them, goodbye!" and then take off again. Why do the alien fact have to mean so much? Its not like its their concern if this cause a dozen religious fanatics to pass out.

Originally posted by merka
You said that we are in our infancy several times in the text. Why? Take some ancient Greek and show him around modern day New York and he would think us to be gods.

And show a species capable of traversing the reaches of the galaxy our 'technological advancement' and they would, at the very best, nod with a sense of understanding.

If an alien species were to be capable of 'galactic scale' interaction then our technology would seem infantile by comparrison. I agreee, there is an intrinsic notion of scale when discussing technological advancement. However, our current level would most likely pale in comparrison to those who would be capable of treavel by which to observe us.

Originally posted by merka
Personally I wonder whether aliens really think that much. I mean, why should they care? If they find a world populated by a sentient creatures capable of mass communication, they could just drop by to say "hello, you're not alone and there are many more like us out there, good luck finding them, goodbye!" and then take off again.

Perhaps they would understand and can relate to our technological infancy. Perhaps they wish to allow this 'self-governing' to go by without outside interaction. Perhaps they would rather allow a species to reach out to the stars because they desire to do so...not because a species dropped by and implied that they should.

I am not sure to be honest; nobody can say for sure. It is simply within my opinion that interaction with an emerging species would not be to anyones advantage.

Originally posted by DarkSide
In any case I don't think we would have reached our current technological level if the cold war had not happened. And we would have been on the moon much later, etc.

Ah, I think I see what you are getting at here. 'With war comes much advancement'. This is, historically, true. However, it is in my opinion that this war-centered type of advancement would be one which moves quite like a pendulum; at one point the 'usefullness' of war wears thin and advancement without war would start to begin its arch.

There would come, at the peak of a certain 'peace-centered' swing, a point in time where the head of the pendulum must be stopped and held in place. If this is done at the correct swing of the mechanism then perhaps we would allow ourselves to advance peacefully and productively.

Maybe there is a specific point in which this must occur. There is, if my assumption is correct, a very narrow window of time in which this peace minded swing must be grasped. If done so too soon or too late it would most likely cause us to either destroy ourselves or hinder our future advancement by way of 'missed oppurtunity'.

Originally posted by DarkSide
But for how long? We know the USA are developping a ballistic shield and they want to extend it to Europe and Japan. So basically that will eliminate any chance of nuclear retaliation if the USA decide to nuke some part of the "third world". The only time nukes were used was when only 1 country had them , the next unbalance will be when 1 country is immune to them.

Like I said above: There seems to be a crucial 'window of oppurtunity'. Programs such as a 'nuclear shield' retracts an important mutuality and would most likely distrupt, delay or effectively close this window.

Originally posted by DarkSide
And I wouldn't exclude the possibility of insane leaders, who prefer to start a nuclear war than to lose their power.

Understood, and perhaps they are simply another form of allowing only the 'most worthy' into the 'galactic scale'. If a species contains individuals who would act as such then perhaps they do not deserve the ability of galactic travel...and I never once said that we are deserving of this at all. Only time will tell.

Originally posted by DarkSide
It does, and I agree with the fact that we will "become one". But is it necessarily a good thing? Without competitors our will to innovate and expand will be slowed down.

Perhaps not. Once again I am relying on my 'window of oppurtunity' mind set. If such a window of ideal cooperation exists then combining our efforts would be to our advantage...only if done at the correct time of course.

Originally posted by DarkSide
So the next eventuality is that if we come across another space faring species we will start a technological race with them.

That is quite a good point. I would imagine that at a certain point there is a 'technological plateau'. Perfected galactic travel and colonization would seem to be that point --in my opinion.

Perhaps there would be little differeence between species in forms of technology at this scale; I assume they may look or funtion differently as to suit the individual species, but would be similar in concept.

Originally posted by DarkSide
I find Asimov's universe very interesting when it comes to colonization. There have been numerous wars in human history, over diverse causes, I don't think colonization will stop the trend.

I have already adressed why I feel colonization would fail as a result of war. I am not tring to be rude but I really don't want to become a broken record on points I have already exhausted.

And I could tell you were a fan of good science-fiction. My hats off to you my friend.

Originally posted by DarkSide
But your assuming that a species will always tend to act for the survival of the species. Group selection. I don't agree, numerous decisions have been taken by so many politicians for there own advantage that put certain populations into danger, and done so knowingly. Also due to this obsession with individual interests, we are short-sighted. The best example is that we know that our system is destroying the environment yet we continue for the economic benefits it has in the present. We only learn by error it seems, and over time we forget and repeat the error.

Ah, this is true. And would this not simply be another way of ensuring that a species which is lead by such individuals does not successfully obtain acess to the 'galactic scale'?

Implied notions of a self governing system which allows acess to this scale...you seem to be sounding like me now.

Originally posted by DarkSide
But if we met a similar civilisation, I guess they would indeed trade away, but at the first opportunity one might take the advantage. It just becomes interstellar politics at this point.

I suppose it does. However, one would hope that at this galactic scale the risks of abusing and/or exterminating entire species (not just individual cultures) would act in such a way as to ensure some amount of 'feared retribution'.

If we were to attack, exploit or exterminate a species there would be others who, as I have already stated, would be in a majority which would not allow for such action. Such action would, in my opinion, result in the extermination of those who have abused their 'rights' to galactic travel and interaction.

Implied and understood retribution for improper action is a pretty good reason to not partake in such actions. It is not just a culture which is risked, but rather an entire species and world.

Originally posted by DarkSide
I imagine both species will have a group of dissidents that will hate the other species for religious or racial ideas...

I would have to agree. Sadly, we, as a species, would have many who may fall into this catagory. If so they may decide to take action. This action would hopefully be the extreme minority...if not...then I would assume we would be 'escorted' out of this galactic scale.

Originally posted by spines
I am not sure to be honest; nobody can say for sure. It is simply within my opinion that interaction with an emerging species would not be to anyones advantage.

Would it be to anyones disadvantage? Even if they want us to continue our own path, I see no reason for them to not stop by and say hello. Life is life, we will continue it just like usual regardless of knowing there is aliens tomorrow or not. Life is also about drastic turns and I'm guessing the aliens damn well know it.

Its like going to say hello to a neighbour. What ramifications will it have? Maybe you're gonna go there to tell him you like his house and then stab him with a kitchen knife sure, but lets make use of the "friendly" argument. You go to him and say hello. What happens? He now knows about you. You go home again. Does anything happen? No, he will still live his life as he would have done without your involvement. And you will live yours. And If he can get his ass out of the door, he might come and say hello right back at you. But it doesnt matter what he does really, that's up to him.

This is my argument. Knowledge of aliens is still just a fact like everything else, it wont have much more effect on our civilization than the knowledge of gravity have, or whatever. I wont go into technology trade or any deeper relationship, just if we would have the knowledge right now, today.

Originally posted by spines
Ah, I think I see what you are getting at here. 'With war comes much advancement'. This is, historically, true. However, it is in my opinion that this war-centered type of advancement would be one which moves quite like a pendulum; at one point the 'usefullness' of war wears thin and advancement without war would start to begin its arch.

But isn't this advancement through war happening since thousands of years? Another thing that is improved by war is medicine, for example blood transfusions during world war I.

Maybe there is a specific point in which this must occur. There is, if my assumption is correct, a very narrow window of time in which this peace minded swing must be grasped. If done so too soon or too late it would most likely cause us to either destroy ourselves or hinder our future advancement by way of 'missed oppurtunity'.

If it's true then we are certainly a good way from it happening, considering how violent the world still is.

Understood, and perhaps they are simply another form of allowing only the 'most worthy' into the 'galactic scale'. If a species contains individuals who would act as such then perhaps they do not deserve the ability of galactic travel...and I never once said that we are deserving of this at all. Only time will tell.

Yes but wouldn't these megalomaniac leaders pop up even after colonization,on Earth or on a colony? after all we would all still be human with our qualities and defects.

That is quite a good point. I would imagine that at a certain point there is a 'technological plateau'. Perfected galactic travel and colonization would seem to be that point --in my opinion.

Perhaps there would be little differeence between species in forms of technology at this scale; I assume they may look or funtion differently as to suit the individual species, but would be similar in concept.

I think there is. If you go by the Civilisation scale thingy, we're a Type 0.7 Civilisation, which means we still rely on fossil fuels, and it is damaging our planet. A type I Civilisation is able to use all the planetary energy resources, for example turning all the sunlight into energy, extracting energy from hurricanes etc ( a hurricane has the energy of dozens of nukes). We're still at least a 100 years from this stage and must overcome global warming without returning to the stone age. After becoming a Type I Civilisation I agree that we will have to get rid of nations, and wars.

I suppose it does. However, one would hope that at this galactic scale the risks of abusing and/or exterminating entire species (not just individual cultures) would act in such a way as to ensure some amount of 'feared retribution'.

But wouldn't an old civilisation, living in peace since millenia, and thus having forgotten how to fight and abandonned their weapons and defenses, be extremely vulnerable to a younger civilisation far less advanced but still armed?

If we were to attack, exploit or exterminate a species there would be others who, as I have already stated, would be in a majority which would not allow for such action. Such action would, in my opinion, result in the extermination of those who have abused their 'rights' to galactic travel and interaction.

You can't just exterminate those that don't agree with you , not in a democracy. And a government can manipulate public opinion even a majority did disagree with it, look at the war on Irak. We could lie about the aliens and invent proof that they plan to destroy us and that we must make the first move and cripple them before it's to late, to get our hands on something they have and that we want.

I would have to agree. Sadly, we, as a species, would have many who may fall into this catagory. If so they may decide to take action. This action would hopefully be the extreme minority...if not...then I would assume we would be 'escorted' out of this galactic scale.

I agree with you that when colonization will be done it will be done by peaceful means. But what about thousands of years later. Civilisations rise and fall, and anything can happen.

Or consider another alternative :

The Galaxy is billions of years old. It is possible, after all, that a civilisation emerged maybe a million years ago, and extended it's power to all the galaxy. We would then be in the territory of a galactic, Type III Civilisation. They therefore must have witnessed our evolution upto the state we have now reached. They know we are on the verge of self-destruction, and that if we don't, we will start exploring the galaxy, and contact will be inevitable. They also know that direct contact at our current stage would cause social disorder and probably a collapse of our civilisation (as Hawkings once said, "Whenever a more advanced civ. met a less advanced one, the least advanced civ. was always destroyed"). The best strategy to take according to the COMETA report would be to show gradual signs of their existance to us throughout history but never leave proof. The goal is to force the idea of extra-terrestrial life in our culture so we accept it easier. If the UFO phenomena is really extra-terrestrial it seems that this is the strategy they are following. There are sightings that go back to ancient times, but since the industrial age there have been "UFO waves" and such.

So maybe we will be integrated into this galactic thing and our colonization will be regulated since there's a limited number of planets in the galaxy but a potetially unlimited number of settlers.

[edit on 23-5-2007 by DarkSide]

EBE's are not interested in war...they do not have war.
We have war. We are evil, they are not.
Time and again we know man is evil.
We have no proof they are like us, and in fact we have proof they are not
So man and his own warped mind keep them from being open to us.
And can you blame them
we are like a bunch of wild dogs


[edit on 23-5-2007 by junglelord]

Originally posted by merka
Its like going to say hello to a neighbour. What ramifications will it have? Maybe you're gonna go there to tell him you like his house and then stab him with a kitchen knife sure, but lets make use of the "friendly" argument.

There is a distinct difference between popping in to say hello with a neighbor and an entirley different, alien species stopping on down and saying hello. Allow me to elaborate:

Your neighbor knows that you exist. Even without seeing you, your presense is obvious. Your car comes and goes, your house stays in order and so on. Your presense is expected, so when you stop by to say hello he is not taken back by your existence. Furthermore, if you move into a house which has been vacant for some time, your presense is still expected...eventually.

You are, for a lack of a better word, 'assumed' to exist

Originally posted by merka
This is my argument. Knowledge of aliens is still just a fact like everything else, it wont have much more effect on our civilization than the knowledge of gravity have, or whatever. I wont go into technology trade or any deeper relationship, just if we would have the knowledge right now, today.

Knowledge of their existence, right now, today, would have more of an affect then simply allowing us to nod our heads in understanding.

If a species of increased intelligence was to make itself known without a reasonable doubt then I would assume that our current path would diverge from its present direction greatly.

I would assume that a degree of 'tunnel vision' would develop in relation to technology...perhaps we would begin to strive for something which we are not yet ready to grasp. I imagine much more then simply having the ability to reach into a new scale is needed for that type of endeavor.

Good point, except that what is probably a majority of the population in at least industrialized countries assume aliens to exist and that their discovery is expected... eventually

Life is unpredictable. I doubt aliens would reason that its not. Tomorrow Russia could have nuked my city. I wouldnt have expected it and I'd be pretty dead (or an awesome cool green glowing mutant with a talking tree sticking out my belly or something). There is NO ONE, hell not even aliens with possible time travel capabilities, that can predict what first contact will bring. Technological state is irrelevant.

Originally posted by DarkSide
But isn't this advancement through war happening since thousands of years? Another thing that is improved by war is medicine, for example blood transfusions during world war I.

Perhaps we have not yet made our first swing back to peaceful advancement. Perhaps only one swing is needed but the grasp must be at an exact time.

We are, all things considered, a young species. If there were to be other intelligent species who are, perhaps, billions of years old then maybe they have swung the arch numerous times...or have grabbed and held at the right point in their history.

Originally posted by DarkSide
If it's true then we are certainly a good way from it happening, considering how violent the world still is.

Indeed. I never stated that we are close to or even ready for this type of leap in scale. Perhaps we, as a species, will never be ready because of this violence...or maybe we will, over time, mature to a point where such a leap is possible --in both technology and maturity.

Originally posted by DarkSide
Yes but wouldn't these megalomaniac leaders pop up even after colonization,on Earth or on a colony? after all we would all still be human with our qualities and defects.

As I stated before (I think): If this were to happen then it is most likely to happen during a time of oppurtunity. The beginings of colonization would most certainly seem like a time for this to happen. If it does, then I imagine the resulting chaos and power grab would render us extinct or unnable to continue with our emergence into the galactic scale...at least at that time.

One could say that such personalities and conflicts are simply a required step along the path. We must first learn from our mistakes and carry on. If we are to survive as a galactic entity then I suppose an earned stability may be required --even as a direct result of war with ourselves.

Originally posted by DarkSide
I think there is. If you go by the Civilisation scale thingy, we're a Type 0.7 Civilisation, which means we still rely on fossil fuels, and it is damaging our planet.

[...]

After becoming a Type I Civilisation I agree that we will have to get rid of nations, and wars.

Indeed. Like I have said before in this post. We are, most likely, far off from being ready to enter this new scale. And even that assumes that we will be able to do so at all.

Originally posted by DarkSide
But wouldn't an old civilisation, living in peace since millenia, and thus having forgotten how to fight and abandonned their weapons and defenses, be extremely vulnerable to a younger civilisation far less advanced but still armed?

Hmm, I suppose that would be correct if you assume that a species would, with age, give up their arms and ability to wage a deffensive war.

If they were to maintain a ready and capable fighting force in times of peace then I suppose they would be ready and capable of defending themselves from an emerging species.

Originally posted by DarkSide
You can't just exterminate those that don't agree with you , not in a democracy. And a government can manipulate public opinion even a majority did disagree with it, look at the war on Irak. We could lie about the aliens and invent proof that they plan to destroy us and that we must make the first move and cripple them before it's to late, to get our hands on something they have and that we want.

I would take into consideration my opinion on a majority of species which would not tolerate such offensive action. The knowledge of such numbers and the innate risk presented in offensive action as a result of this would steady most.

The scale of action on our planet presents differing risk/gain assesments then those of a galactic scale. If this majority of species which do not tolerate such offensive were to be an established normality then any species who acts out offensivley would most likely be destroyed for the betterment of the rest involved.

Democracy or not I would assume that it would be the 'best option'. Hell, my entire notion of a species being 'worthy' to join such a scale presents little democracy. If a species which is unfit for the scale puts itself into the scale...it must be taken out so not to damage all others who manage to coexist on the level.

Originally posted by DarkSide
I agree with you that when colonization will be done it will be done by peaceful means. But what about thousands of years later. Civilisations rise and fall, and anything can happen.

Yes, and there is nothing to say that a species once involved in the galactic scale can not falter on itself and tumble into oblivion or obscurity. It would seem that the natural state of things is to decay...civilizations are not immune to this rule.

Originally posted by DarkSide
Or consider another alternative :

The Galaxy is billions of years old. It is possible, after all, that a civilisation emerged maybe a million years ago, and extended it's power to all the galaxy. We would then be in the territory of a galactic, Type III Civilisation. They therefore must have witnessed our evolution upto the state we have now reached. They know we are on the verge of self-destruction, and that if we don't, we will start exploring the galaxy, and contact will be inevitable. They also know that direct contact at our current stage would cause social disorder and probably a collapse of our civilisation (as Hawkings once said, "Whenever a more advanced civ. met a less advanced one, the least advanced civ. was always destroyed"). The best strategy to take according to the COMETA report would be to show gradual signs of their existance to us throughout history but never leave proof.

And perhaps that is something which happens often on the galactic scale. I imagine research and exploration would be of great interest to a species which has the ability to traverse the galaxy...

So perhaps a species, such as ours, is begining to 'reach a point'. The best option for the non-startling first contact may very well be one of gradual acclimation.

Once again, thank you for the great contribution.

I hope i don't fail the topic here so much by the following words

I've come to a lot of thoughts in my time of research to the topic and yet i'm only 17.

Whatever, what i'm quite sure off, and also made me laugh at first is the fact that we would never be able to start a thermonuclear war.
A lot of witnesses in context with nuclear weapons aswell as energy projects report, that ufos have been here deactivating silos, or simply hovering over nuclear plants in a manner of interest. Big brother is here without a doubt.

Now, the simple problem with us is, that it's hard or either impossible to leave the limits ( you can't imagine how it's to be more intelligent can you? ) but i got myself confirmed more and more that we are just the "childs" of some species in big interest on us, and yet some are really unfortune to us.


I also believe, the higher the intelligence, the higher the peace for the species itself, but the attitude to others can still be very hostile.
I think the near future will be very hard for us as species, if not some "others" come to dominate us we might destroy ourselves.

Important is the awareness of you all, of the things going on, especially building your own world picture INSTEAD OF following the standard one.

Only that makes you adult no matter when.

cheers

[edit on 23-5-2007 by Paul the seeker]

[edit on 23-5-2007 by Paul the seeker]

Originally posted by spines
We are, all things considered, a young species. If there were to be other intelligent species who are, perhaps, billions of years old then maybe they have swung the arch numerous times...or have grabbed and held at the right point in their history.

Not only a young species but more importantly (as far as technology is concerned, a young civilisation)

Hmm, I suppose that would be correct if you assume that a species would, with age, give up their arms and ability to wage a deffensive war.

Well a defensive force is an expensive thing to maintain, especially with such high technologies. If a civilisation was truly peaceful and it's neighbours also were they would probably end up giving up on defense by saying the expense would be better off to improve the standart of living or whatever. Over time any person with military experience would die to not be renewed.

I would take into consideration my opinion on a majority of species which would not tolerate such offensive action. The knowledge of such numbers and the innate risk presented in offensive action as a result of this would steady most.

Not if both have a large navy and devastating weapons that would mean mutual distruction or heavy damage. Two or more "empires" could then subsist, one assimilating the other if they weakened or collapsed.

The scale of action on our planet presents differing risk/gain assesments then those of a galactic scale. If this majority of species which do not tolerate such offensive were to be an established normality then any species who acts out offensivley would most likely be destroyed for the betterment of the rest involved.

Democracy or not I would assume that it would be the 'best option'. Hell, my entire notion of a species being 'worthy' to join such a scale presents little democracy. If a species which is unfit for the scale puts itself into the scale...it must be taken out so not to damage all others who manage to coexist on the level.

But that's a contradiction. How can you be peaceful if you kill anyone that disagrees with you? That would certainly be considered as a tyranny and a totalitarian state.

Yes, and there is nothing to say that a species once involved in the galactic scale can not falter on itself and tumble into oblivion or obscurity. It would seem that the natural state of things is to decay...civilizations are not immune to this rule.

Goold old entropy

And perhaps that is something which happens often on the galactic scale. I imagine research and exploration would be of great interest to a species which has the ability to traverse the galaxy...

It must happen each time they detect a new intelligent species.

So perhaps a species, such as ours, is begining to 'reach a point'. The best option for the non-startling first contact may very well be one of gradual acclimation.

Exactly , the point being imo the Type I Civ.

Keep in mind that even if right now, we don't have the technology for space travel, and sending a pound of material into space costs more than 10k $, in the future space travel will become a common, cheap thing, just like aircraft. And it won't be such a big deal as it is today.

500 years ago it took several months to cross the atlantic, and lots of people died in the process because of storms or illness. Now it takes a few hours by aircraft with practically no risks. I think space travel will follow the same path. So space travel and colonisation might become so evident that smaller groups will be able to perform it.

Originally posted by merka
Good point, except that what is probably a majority of the population in at least industrialized countries assume aliens to exist and that their discovery is expected... eventually

Ah, but the presumption of life and the confirmed existence are two very different things. One implys an abstract idea of the 'what if' while the other a definite knowledge.

Originally posted by merka
Life is unpredictable. I doubt aliens would reason that its not. [...] There is NO ONE, hell not even aliens with possible time travel capabilities, that can predict what first contact will bring. Technological state is irrelevant.

If an alien species is technologically advanced enough to come about our planet and bear witness to our progress then I imagine they can choose the time and place in during which to make first contact.

Either they chose to 'come down and say hello' (which you already know I doubt), or they watch our progress and when we have achieved galactic scale they make themselves known in a neutral circumstance.

I thank you as well for your continued contribution to the discussion.

Originally posted by DarkSide
Not only a young species but more importantly (as far as technology is concerned, a young civilisation)

Indeed. Young and reckless and not quite ready for leaving our present scale...we are the Fonzi of the galaxy

Originally posted by DarkSide
Well a defensive force is an expensive thing to maintain, especially with such high technologies. If a civilisation was truly peaceful and it's neighbours also were they would probably end up giving up on defense by saying the expense would be better off to improve the standart of living or whatever. Over time any person with military experience would die to not be renewed.

At a certain point I imagine the cost would even out into a normality. There is a initial buildup which is sufficient in its ability to be a detterent. However, after the buildup there is only the minimal costs of upkeep and training. Hell, the 'troops' could be trained initially and then useful in a service sector, while still keeping in shape with further training, until they are needed for war (if they are needed for war).

At a point the build up of a defensive and largely unused military force would seem to hit a stasis of negligible cost. The economy will have fluxed and warped around it, making it just another annual cost which gets payed off with no consequence.

Originally posted by DarkSide
Not if both have a large navy and devastating weapons that would mean mutual distruction or heavy damage. Two or more "empires" could then subsist, one assimilating the other if they weakened or collapsed.

I suppose that as long as peaceful coexistence remained then it would not be an issue. However, if for whatever reason two competing empires destroy one another or mutually remove one another from the galactic scale then both species should never have been in this scale.

They have, once again I use the word, self-governed themselves out of the equation all together.

Originally posted by DarkSide
But that's a contradiction. How can you be peaceful if you kill anyone that disagrees with you? That would certainly be considered as a tyranny and a totalitarian state.

It is not killing those who do not disagree with you. Well, it is to a point --they want conquest and the rest of the galaxy wishes coexistense and cooperation.

However, if an emmerging species begins to take offensive action against another, weaker, species then this emerging species could risk compromising the rest of the species involved.

It may be cold but...it would seem equal to putting down a pet with rabbis as to save the rest of the animal population in the area. If it is not dealt with immediatly and permanently (for that individual circumstance) then the infection will spread and continue to do so until there is no living 'target' left.

I would not call it tyrrany. I would call it the ensured existense of the greater whole.

Originally posted by Paul the seeker
Whatever, what i'm quite sure off, and also made me laugh at first is the fact that we would never be able to start a thermonuclear war.
A lot of witnesses in context with nuclear weapons aswell as energy projects report, that ufos have been here deactivating silos, or simply hovering over nuclear plants in a manner of interest. Big brother is here without a doubt.

Hmm, and those could simply be stories which have become a popular notion through retelling over time.

In my opinion (and I am sure you can guess where I am going with this): If we were to be entering a thermonuclear war I doubt any species that may be observing us would stop it. They would, if my opinion is correct, want to ensure that those who are able to become players in the 'galactic scale' are worthy of such entry. If we kill ourselves off...well, one less species to observe and one less possible future threat.

Then again, thats if you buy into my mind set of non-invested observation.

Thank you for the contribution.