Technologically Advanced: Not Necessarily Violent

Originally posted by spines
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.

But that would mean technological stagnation, and complete lack of experience. They would be outmatched by another military that has experience and ongoing research.

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.

Not necessarily species, but civilisations. Political Entities. There could be a peaceful civilisation on one side and a warlike one on the other, yet belonging to the same species. Should we then destroy the whole species? Surely these political and belligerent behaviours are not inherent to a species and can appear in any species that is based on competition (because of natural selection).

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.

But what if they are not able to do so?

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.

The best way is not to put down the animal but to vaccine the whole population

To the O.P.:

Could not have said it better my self. Your logic and your thoughts are crisp and imaculate.

Any surviving species that is so far technologically advanced as to attain the energetical means to travel what we refer to as hundreds of "light years", must, by default of its survival and destructive capabilities of its technolgies, be peace full and loving beyond what we have currently experienced and can probably yet imagine... and with this love I would imagine comes with it deep secrets and collective and individual omnified awarenesses and magnified conscious and conscience perceptions. I'd also assume that they have learned to stop implementing 'dead technology and mechanisms' and turned to the knowledge of themselves as the creators and they create 'living' technology. Technology that would not harm the 'uni-verse' around us and in us, yet be a living, conscious part of it that can organically contribute to it while it is being used and even after its life cycle is through.

Awesome post, amazing thinking, very thought provoking and geniusly presented

There is no limit to the imagination, there is no limit to technology, there is no limit to evolution

[edit on 23-5-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

I have just returned from a two week vacation. I apologize for starting this thread and then hopping ship for two weeks. I hope this thread can still function and hell, maybe it can stop just being DarkSide and I discussing galactic empires by ourselves (even though I do enjoy it quite a bit).

I look forward to the continuation of this thread and to hearing everyones thoughts.

Originally posted by DarkSide
But that would mean technological stagnation, and complete lack of experience. They would be outmatched by another military that has experience and ongoing research.

Hmm, I am not quite sure that I see how a capable and continually trained/upkept military would lack the skill or manpower to engage itself in a military conflict (should the need arise).

However, I do see the point of experience. After a certain amount of time the troops are no longer 'battle-hardened' and familiar with war. However, that does not mean that they are in a position by which they could be easily outmatched in battle.

The point you make about technological stagnation: I am assuming that you mean military tech. stagnation. If the species is focused on technological advancement (as I assume a species on this scale must be)then I would assume that advancement in all branches of their tech. would continue. After all, advancement in one field often leads to advancement in many others; much like the branching off of a tree.

Originally posted by DarkSide
Not necessarily species, but civilisations. Political Entities. There could be a peaceful civilisation on one side and a warlike one on the other, yet belonging to the same species. Should we then destroy the whole species? Surely these political and belligerent behaviours are not inherent to a species and can appear in any species that is based on competition (because of natural selection).

Good question. After thinking it over a bit I think I have found my answer: A species which consists of, for simplicities sake, two civilizations. Both have coexisted and through mutual cooperation have advanced their species to the 'galactic scale' (I say they cooperate bceause, as previously stated, I believe that they would have to in order to advance from a planatary to galactic scale). For whatever reason civilization A and civilization B are no longer of the same temperment...one craves power and control and starts to become 'competitive'.

This would, once again, most likely end in a self-governing of the entire species. Competition would start locally before entering the realm of other species. If both civilzations are no longer in cooperation and are, in fact, fighting one another, it is in my opinion that they would be unnable to maintain their presense on the galactic scale. They would either destroy eachother, take eachother out of the galactic scale as a necessity or one would quickly emerge as the victor who can maintain a galactic participation. In that case there are two outwarlde evident outcomes:

a) The victor is the peaceful of the two civilizations. They have defended themselves from an offensive attack and wish to continue their participation in the galactic scale. They would be 'allowed' to do this...after all: defensive action from another species and from your own is still defensive and neccessary action.

b) The more violant of the two quickly wins. They have shown themselves to be hungry for power and control. Their offensive action to obtain these things would show them as a threat which should be removed from the galactic scale; either by extermination or by stifling their ability to participate on the larger scale.

Originally posted by DarkSide

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.

But what if they are not able to do so?

I left my quote in here because I am not sure what you are asking exactly. Could you restate it? Thank you and I apologize for my thick-headedness...if that is a word.

Originally posted by DarkSide
The best way is not to put down the animal but to vaccine the whole population

Ah, but not so.

Recently --about five years ago-- there was a rabbis outbreak in my area. Every animal within a certain radius of the initial 'outbreak' was eventually killed off by the disease. It spread until it, for whatever reason, had no other target to infect. This is not saying that every animal died but at a certain point the population became so dwindled that the infected animals could no longer easily spread the rabbis.

Now, if the initial animal had been put down the many others, of many differing species, would not have died. Necessary cruelty to ensure the further existence and benefit of all other species involved.

Originally posted by spines
Hmm, I am not quite sure that I see how a capable and continually trained/upkept military would lack the skill or manpower to engage itself in a military conflict (should the need arise).

Yes but as I said it would be only a defense force. The attacker always has the advantage of striking first and usually has new tactics unknown to the defender (for example the blitzkrieg in WWII). Also better technology does not equate victory.

The point you make about technological stagnation: I am assuming that you mean military tech. stagnation. If the species is focused on technological advancement (as I assume a species on this scale must be)then I would assume that advancement in all branches of their tech. would continue. After all, advancement in one field often leads to advancement in many others; much like the branching off of a tree.

True. But it doesn't mean they will have new weapons easily available for the simple fact that they'd believe they don't need them.

Originally posted by DarkSide
b) The more violant of the two quickly wins. They have shown themselves to be hungry for power and control. Their offensive action to obtain these things would show them as a threat which should be removed from the galactic scale; either by extermination or by stifling their ability to participate on the larger scale.

A civilisation of that type attaining that level of technology would not easily be wiped out by galactic carebears :p

I left my quote in here because I am not sure what you are asking exactly. Could you restate it?

You said the established civilisations would destroy any violent one, but what if they were not able to do so?

Originally posted by spines
Now, if the initial animal had been put down the many others, of many differing species, would not have died. Necessary cruelty to ensure the further existence and benefit of all other species involved.

But if the whole population had been vaccined there would not have been an outbreak at all. This is exaclty why Smallpox only exists in laboratories now, so many people were vaccined that the virus died out in nature.

Originally posted by DarkSide
Yes but as I said it would be only a defense force. The attacker always has the advantage of striking first and usually has new tactics unknown to the defender (for example the blitzkrieg in WWII). Also better technology does not equate victory.

And in that same tone: Unknown strategy and being the offensive force does not equate victory (for example the blitzkrieg in WWII).

Originally posted by DarkSide
True. But it doesn't mean they will have new weapons easily available for the simple fact that they'd believe they don't need them.

When species are entering this galactic scale I am assuming that a small portion would be desire conquest. With this knowledge comes an ever present need for a defensive force.

Wars not being activley fought does not imply that a species will stop understanding the necessity and motions of such war. If one does [forget] then surley they will be taken off the scale by an aggresive species which would then, in turn, be taken off the scale by the majoirty of others; in order to ensure that such aggresion/conquest oriented species not be allowed to tear the fragile balance which the galactic scale implies.

Originally posted by DarkSide
A civilisation of that type attaining that level of technology would not easily be wiped out by galactic carebears :p

To assume that the oldest and most advanced species within this scale would be 'carebears' seems a little off to me (although the image made me laugh for quite some time).

With age comes experience and known preperaton. The coming and going of violent species should refine the 'wiping out' --or simply knocking down-- of such species to an effecient, if not simple, process...even if they were actual carebears.

Originally posted by DarkSide
You said the established civilisations would destroy any violent one, but what if they were not able to do so?

In that event: The galactic scale is destroyed and dominated by one sole species. The other species, assuming they do not assume a role of subserviance, would either be destroyed or knocked down to a level of limited to no galactic involvement.

For the conquesting species, this form of galactic scale is impractible. There are all the costs of maintaining a 'galactic empire' with none of the benefits. No trade, no sharing of knowledge and, for an aggresive species, nobody left to conquest.

This sole species would, in time, falter and fail into itself and I suppose the whole process of peaceful scale could attempt to start over again...who knows how many incarnations of scale or years this would take.

Originally posted by DarkSide
But if the whole population had been vaccined there would not have been an outbreak at all. This is exaclty why Smallpox only exists in laboratories now, so many people were vaccined that the virus died out in nature.

You can not vaccinate the entire animal population of any area. It is not feasible on both an economic and practical level.

There are, in the mountains and valleys of about 5 square miles (my immediate area), a large number of species which were affected by the outbreak. This is including, but not limited to:

*Deer
*Black Bear
*Fox
*Mountain Lion
*Racoon
*Possum
*Different Types of Squirrel
*Chipmunk
*Rabbit
*Skunk
*Beaver
*Feral Cat
*Groundhog
*Domesticated Dog and Cat
*Cow
*Goat
*Sheep
*Horse

I am sure there are some I have forgotton. The domestic and farm animals could and are vaccinated easily. As for the rest...I would like to see it happen.

The point of all this is that: Vaccination is not practicle, and when relating it to the galactic scale and violent species...I am not quite sure where it fits. Perhaps the vaccination against a conquesting species is to hang a 'Nobody here but us chickens' sign on every planet.

In my opinion civilization that achieved level of technology that allows them to travel within the galaxy will have the means to protect themselves. Or they’ll find a way to avoid the fight. Looks like you are looking at 1 peaceful civilization and 1 non-peaceful civilization; with billions of stars in the galaxy I think that’s not correct.
Peaceful civilizations will most likely be in alliance with like civilizations for trade, sharing of knowledge, including military research, and protection. Imagine a cluster of 10 or whatever number of civilizations. Even if they stagnate in their military technology research and development, they will outnumber the aggressor (WW2 USSR vs Germany). The advancing force usually is smaller in numbers, and even if their technology is far more advanced they are not fighting on their own turf, they would also be fighting an unknown enemy. If however they do their research and find out who they are fighting with, they’ll probably notice an alliance with other civilizations. And to attack all of the members of an alliance at once would mean stretching their resources. Which will most likely end in failure (WW2 Germany).
So the only means of expanding for an aggressive civilization is to attack weaker civilizations and absorb/assimilate them. I don’t see an alliance between 2 aggressive civilizations, sooner or later they will attack each other, or fall apart because each of them wants bigger share. Even if one manages to build an empire, it will fall due to internal conflicts.

A side note. I have no idea how a civilization that is thousands and thousands of years more advanced than ours go about their daily lives, and how they protect themselves. I do think that their civilization is a lot more stable than any of our current and past civilizations on earth.

Side note 2. There probably are more chances that we meet a totally neutral civilization, who could care less about us.