We are not unique planet with life, before us there are more planet with life, they left Bible to warn us that do not eat the fruit of the tree of good and bad, however, our knowledge not so high, therefore, we do not understand what mean is, unfortunately, the end day already imminent on 2019-2030, but we still discuss " greenhouse Gas",France President Mr. Emmanuel Macron "Make Earth Great Again" and German Chancellor Angela Merkel " Our Mother Earth", both are great.
Our earth facing the end day between 2019-2030, to realize the great ambitions, a great action of saving the earth must to activate now.
President of United States Mr. Trump made a right decision to pull out the Paris Agreement 2015, it is true because cut emission of greenhouse gas do not curbing the climate change, however, he did not promised that he has a way to resolve the problem of emission.
Does it matter if we send something out? The distances seem too vast. Our signals decay so fast that you need moon sized antennas to receive them beyond a few light years. Also, so far, no one seems to be out there. And even if:
Why would anyone spend an enormous amount of energy and time to reach us, a miniature rock that has nothing to offer to a space faring race?
I don't want to sound negative, but considering we have so many problems with racism already, think of the problems we'd face when there would be another intelligent species around! There's probably a reason why there is only one intelligent species on Earth, and it isn't pretty.
Finally, by the time we'd be able to visit another planet, we'd probably prefer sitting in our Holodecks all day.
Maybe, maybe not. It would more depend on circumstances - friendly encounter might not go so badly. Just because we haven't solved some things doesn't mean we shouldn't try others or open other doors. Even if we do it despite the fact that racism is still a problem.
Dolphins are pretty smart! Mean like us, too. If we and they didn't inhabit incompatible environments, I suspect we'd have had some complicated history with them, and probably now speak of them in the past tense - or they'd speak so of us.
They are! I recently had to make peace with a family of them, one of whose fledglings I had inadvertently upset by getting too close with a camera.
Fortunately, ravens are smart enough to recognize the combination of repeated food offerings, and a demurral to repeat the initial rudeness, as earnest of good intent - walking out the door with my camera no longer provokes alarm calls and surveillance overflights. Catbirds, not so much - I pissed off one of those back when there was snow on the ground, and I suspect he'd still quite happily rip my lungs out if he could.
"Or"? They're all excellent and I highly recommend all of them, especially the 3 body problem series.
And honestly the killing star has aged.. weirdly. Amazing concept, seemingly written by an author with multiple personalities, one of whom just cannot shut up about the Titanic
I thought about that when I read the book. How weird to write about such grandiose ideas as interstellar travel and then go on and describe the wreck of Titanic as something marvelous and mysterious.
Has he written about Titanic in his other books too?
I enjoyed Blindsight, but it may not be very reassuring to someone concerned about the possibility of aliens arriving with the intention of using us as a food source.
And I really, really tried hard with The Three Body Problem. I get that the English version is a translation, but in the end the flowery language and slow plot just wore me down. Did anyone else have the same experience?
(Off topic, but I find that the problem with fiction based on SETI / first contact is that the subject often ends up being used as a metaphor for the human condition and the difficulty of really communicating with other people. Which is fine, but doesn't make for satisfying SF in my experience.)
You should really give "Three Body Problem" another chance. There are a lot of diversions and off shoots but the main story really comes together 1/3 of the way through the first book and really picks up in "Dark Forest".
I just finished the trilogy. I enjoyed the first book well enough. The other two have some interesting world-building but I found the plot too slow moving. They're also depressing in a way I can't get into, not just the Dark Forest theory but the prevalence of the "if I can't survive, no one should" attitude. I wonder if the latter actually is more prevalent in Chinese culture or if it's just coming from the author. I did like how things wrapped up at the end of Death's End.
Much of Seveneves was depressing too but it all seemed very plausible. It was in what came next that seemed off.
Having read summaries of the books, I thought the complexity of the overall storyline was excessive for what is a fairly straightforward take on the Fermi paradox and game theory [1]. Maybe I'm being unfair, but having slogged through Seveneves a few months ago I'm kind of grumpy and lacking patience with long, complicated SF epics right now.
(Possible mild spoiler ahead)
[1] Basically: "the forest is full of hunters of unknown strength, so either stay quiet or kill all the hunters." I thought that Greg Bear's Forge of God and Anvil of Stars did a much better job on this aspect of Fermi.
I rather liked The Three Body Problem - but I listened to the unabridged audio-books rather than reading them which definitely makes many books easier to consume.
> Our signals decay so fast that you need moon sized antennas to receive them beyond a few light years.
This is true for relatively low power omni-directional broadcast signals such as terrestrial TV and radio. The signals proposed by the METI community (and those that have already been sent - e.g. from Arecibo) are broadcast at much higher power using a concentrated beam, and would be detectable over interstellar distances using technology similar to that which we have now.
At a time where there is energy scarcity due to increased consumption, I question the economic viability of such an impractical endeavour being carried out under such government support. (Wow I just used so many new words!!!!)
Still this is not a movie where the aliens are on next moon so even if they picked up the signals it would long after the next few generations die off (Light years away - Man they are damn far off). (living in a developing country would give you a whole new perspective on energy scarcity)
If some action is a waste of resources, then who provides the resources doesn't change whether it's a waste or not.
In this case, if sending a signal into space takes a lot of energy and if energy is scarce, then it's a waste of energy regardless of if the government provides it or a private donor.
EDIT: I'm not saying this is true in this particular case (I'm also not saying that its not true), I'm merely stating that whether something is a waste doesn't matter on who is doing the wasting. I would gladly listen to a counter argument and maybe a discussion can be had, but I guess its easier to click a down arrow. Oh well. (Yes, yes, I know it'll happen even more due to my mentioning it)
The Arecibo message had a broadcast power about a 1 megawatt and lasted 3 minutes [1] - in other words 0.05MWh. 1MWh can power 330 homes for one hour [2], so the broadcast "wasted" enough power to supply those homes for three minutes. Given that interstellar broadcasts aren't exactly frequent events, and assuming similar broadcast power/length today, then on a global scale it doesn't seem like a significant waste of power to me.
I never claimed that this particular thing wasteful. I was only pointing out that "And anyway it's being paid for by private donors, not the US government." isn't a good counter argument.
I wasn't taking any sides on this issue, so its not really relevant how much energy it took. I said "if" it is and it was a hypothetical to give a concrete example, not a statement that I thought it was wasteful.
I'll paraphrase:
If <something> is hypothetically wasteful, then <something> is still wasteful regardless of who did it.
Yeah but they would need interstellar-type of timescale to reach us anyway even if they moved at a fraction of speed of light, so the risk is close to nil. We are way, way more likely to be hit by an asteroid or to destroy our planet than to be destroyed by a very remote alien civilization.
I'm not the grandparent poster, but I think that "even if they moved at a fraction of speed of light" refers to the responding civilisation's space vessels, not their return signal.
Let's say you receive an EM signal from a sentient specie.
If you pinpoint its origin to light years away, you know they already had a lot of time to progress past this technology. A good response if you plan on eliminating them would not be a fleet: you'd better setup and direct a huge gamma-ray burst in their general direction.
So the destructive response could come at the speed of light with a little delay at first.
>a miniature rock that has nothing to offer to a space faring race?
I'd think a truly space faring race would probably have very different goals to us and the currency of culture would be much more valuable than natural resources which surely are abundant if space travel is trivial to you. Looking at it that way we'd have a hell of a lot to offer.
I agree. If a culture makes the effort to become space faring then it seems likely that either they had a preexisting motivation/goal, or the experience would change them.
Why would anyone spend an enormous amount of energy and time to reach us, a miniature rock that has nothing to offer to a space faring race?
Folks spend lifetimes thinking of philosophy or working on a single science problem. In addition, we are still exploring oceans, depths of volcanos, and we explore space as much as we can without actually travelling to the places ourselves. We research animals and our own bodies. Some folks spend a lifetime making music. Not all of these has a payback outside of satisfying curiosity or enjoyment, at least not upfront.
Considering this, why would it seem odd that a race would explore what there is to explore?
If intelligent life got as far to have the technology to be able to visit us they at least did not kill themselves off which already reduces the chance of them being aggressive against others.
Tipping off a rogue sentient AI that killed off their own creators is what I am more afraid of.
> Tipping off a rogue sentient AI that killed off their own creators is what I am more afraid of.
That kind of AI would be more busy harvesting new worlds than trying to care about an inferior species like ours (and they would likely not even be in the vicinity so no reason to travel up to us either).
Well I guess it all comes down to proximity then. Perhaps we are better discovering other life far enough way that based on our knowledge of FTL that they won't get to us any time soon.
favorite quote about the possibility concerning all of this
Arthur C. Clarke — 'Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.'
That is what makes that kind of AI dangerous. It just does not care and / or need a reason we could understand. It may decide to visit us in 250 years and reach us ~250 years later.
Other possibilities:
- The sentient / strong AI may have (developed) FTL travel / signalling capabilities which from our current understanding does not seem to be possible.
- The AI may have sent out scouts millions of years ago into multiple directions. The closest scout only needs to decide to conquer / harvest our planet.
- A combination of the above, for example: FTL signalling and activating scouts where needed.
> If intelligent life got as far to have the technology to be able to visit us they at least did not kill themselves off which already reduces the chance of them being aggressive against others.
I have heard this line of reasoning often, but it's not clear to me that the logic is correct. I don't think an entity's treatment of itself necessarily implies much about the way it will treat others.
> I don't think an entity's treatment of itself necessarily implies much about the way it will treat others.
... unless you consider that all life on this planet began with the same chemicals, and that many different organisms are codependent, the most obvious being plants and animals.
Truly, interstellar existence, once confirmed that we're not alone, may also require teamwork. Perhaps ET is just waiting for us to demonstrate that we don't intend to destroy our planet for the benefit of a few selfish short-lived creatures in Earth's long history.
It's a really fascinating topic, there's lots of arguments both sides,
Some points I like:
- A very advanced lifeform may view us the way that we view plants, so basic that wiping them out for convenience sake is not even something that enters the realm of our ethics - we just do it. I imagine aliens coming to Earth and seeing us humans on it eliciting a response like one of us opening a container in the fridge and going "Eww mould" (ewww Primates) and then washing it all clear with hot water.
- One would think that extra-species aggression would be a trait favorably selected by Darwinian evolution, so super-hostile aliens would survive and propagate. Hopefully that's negated by a post-scarcity advanced alien economy?
- In the universe sentience is relatively rare, so finding another race is something that should be treasured, cherished and nurtured.
- Maybe they'll see us as pets, and shower us with gifts
What other scenarios can you think of? I especially like thinking about what happens when there's large intellectual differentials ...
Considering that all you really need is fission bombs and the will to do it (ie project Orion in the 60's) we could be an interstellar civilization now (specifically, I'm talking about nuclear pulse propulsion generation ships). So if a civilization at about our tech level could dedicate a few decades of global GDP to building the infrastructure, one might ask, what goal would motivate such an endeavor?
There are many lofty, high minded goals one could consider; exploration, discovery, species/ecosphere survival in the face of an imminent global threat. Finding, enslaving, or eliminating other sentient life forms? I can't see how this could be the goal of any civilization. Maybe the same impulse that could lead to organizing such an incredible, global effort to build the interstellar infrastructure in the first place could also dictate this less savory motives, ie religious zealotry ie Church of Galactic Subjugation.
The above is speaking to a possible interstellar civilization and not much more than our tech level.
Once there were three tribes. The Optimists, whose patron saints were Drake and Sagan, believed in a universe crawling with gentle intelligence. Surely, said the Optimists, space travel implies enlightenment, for it requires the control of great destructive energies. Any race that can't rise above its own brutal instincts will wipe itself out long before it learns to bridge the interstellar gulf.
Across from the Optimists sat the Pessimists, who genuflected before graven images of St. Fermi and a host of lesser lightweights. The Pessimists envisioned a lonely universe full of dead rocks and prokaryotic slime. The odds are just too low, they insisted. Too many rogues, too much radiation, too much eccentricity in too many orbits. If the galaxy were alive with intelligence, wouldn't it be here by now?
Equidistant from the two tribes sat the Historians. They didn't have many thoughts on the probable prevalence of intelligent, spacefaring extraterrestrials. But if there are any, they said, they're not just going to be smart. They're going to be mean. The reason wasn't merely Human history, the ongoing succession of greater technologies griding lesser ones beneath their boots. No, the real issue was what tools are for. To the Historians, tools existed for only one reason: to force the universe into unnatural shapes. They treated nature as an enemy, they were by definition a rebellion against the way things were.
Technology is a stunted thing in benign environments, it never thrived in any culture gripped by belief in natural harmony. Why invent fusion reactors if your climate is comfortable, if your food is abundant? Why build fortresses if you have no enemies? Why force change upon a world that poses no threat?
Human civilization had a lot of branches, not so long ago. Even into the twenty-first century, a few isolated branches had barely developed stone tools. Some settled down with agriculture. Others weren't content until they had ended nature itself. Still others had built cities in space. We all rested eventually, though. Each new technology trampled lesser ones, climbed to some complacent asymptote, and stopped. But history never said that everyone had to stop where we did. There could be other, more hellish worlds where the best Human technology would crumble, where the environment was still the enemy.
The threats contained in those environments would not be simple ones. Harsh weather and natural disasters either kill you or they don't, and once conquered — or adapted to — they lose their relevance. No, the only environmental factors that continued to matter were those that fought back, that countered strategies with newer ones, that forced their enemies to scale ever-greater heights just to stay alive. Ultimately, the only enemy that mattered was an intelligent one.
And if the best toys do end up in the hands of those who've never forgotten that life itself is an act of war against intelligent opponents, what does that say about a race whose machines travel between the stars?
My shortlist of hard sci-fi authors that have really interesting ideas about extraterrestrial life: Peter Watts (above) and Greg Egan. Liu Cixin has also become popular recently, but he's not quite as hard sci-fi and also (in my opinion) not as intellectually stimulating. Still a good read though. Ted Chiang has some decent ET stuff (one of his stories was recently adapted to the film Arrival), but I like his biblical fiction and philosophical sci-fi more.
At minimum: Something working according to a program created by another species capable of autonomously making a decision to visit us if we tip it off.
I think your reply relies too heavily on our context as humans on earth.
If humans are actually a very clever form of AI crafted by some thing unknown to us, whatever it may be, are we in-fact "artificial?" What if it goes further back: All living things on earth have an origin in an organic artificial intelligence experiment and humans are simply an interesting result?
It may sound far out and perhaps even stupid, but as long as we're talking about AI killing its originator ... it's a legitimate question: Is discerning between Artificial/Natural intelligence even valid outside of planet earth?
Edit: Maybe the word 'program' is what I'm not liking, and your answer is actually legit
I was not sure about the use of the word "program" as well. Just wanted to make it clear I am talking about something created by intelligent / sentient beings capable of autonomously making certain decisions.
Depending on its adaptability that something may outgrow what supports and created it (nature, energy sources, their intelligent / sentient creators etc.).
"If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn’t turn out well for the Native Americans."
The picture of Carl Sagan at the top of the article says it all. These kinds of initiatives are always started by persons who want to pose as visionaries.
Alien life will almost certainly be hostile. The universe only has fininte resources. Every intelligent entity is competition in the long run. Even if resources abound now, the heat death of the universe will come eventually. Every scrap of matter and energy will be invaluable.
All the comments I read here — like most of the discussions that involve speculating the intent of alien civilizations — make the assumption that an entire civilization can only ever have one agenda...
I mean just consider HUMANS finding an alien civilization first; Do you think the outcome will be the same whether the US gets to them first, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or the Japanese or Indians?
Will every nation on Earth have the same reaction and the same plans for dealing with the alien civilization? No, right?
..I think a civilization capable of interstellar travel will have EVEN MORE factions and subgroups with conflicting interests.
Interstellar travel implies a high likelihood that they have already colonized multiple planets, and it’s very unlikely that the governments of multiple planets would agree with each other on all matters, even if they could communicate fast enough, let alone on how to deal with alien civilizations..
52 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 115 ms ] threadOur earth facing the end day between 2019-2030, to realize the great ambitions, a great action of saving the earth must to activate now.
President of United States Mr. Trump made a right decision to pull out the Paris Agreement 2015, it is true because cut emission of greenhouse gas do not curbing the climate change, however, he did not promised that he has a way to resolve the problem of emission.
Why would anyone spend an enormous amount of energy and time to reach us, a miniature rock that has nothing to offer to a space faring race?
Finally, by the time we'd be able to visit another planet, we'd probably prefer sitting in our Holodecks all day.
ONe intelligent species on Earth? So you are assuming most animals are moving objects without any thought or emotion?
Dolphins are pretty smart! Mean like us, too. If we and they didn't inhabit incompatible environments, I suspect we'd have had some complicated history with them, and probably now speak of them in the past tense - or they'd speak so of us.
Fortunately, ravens are smart enough to recognize the combination of repeated food offerings, and a demurral to repeat the initial rudeness, as earnest of good intent - walking out the door with my camera no longer provokes alarm calls and surveillance overflights. Catbirds, not so much - I pissed off one of those back when there was snow on the ground, and I suspect he'd still quite happily rip my lungs out if he could.
I would suggest Peter Watts' "Blindsight" or Liu Cixin's "Three Body Problem" trilogy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Star
And honestly the killing star has aged.. weirdly. Amazing concept, seemingly written by an author with multiple personalities, one of whom just cannot shut up about the Titanic
Has he written about Titanic in his other books too?
And I really, really tried hard with The Three Body Problem. I get that the English version is a translation, but in the end the flowery language and slow plot just wore me down. Did anyone else have the same experience?
(Off topic, but I find that the problem with fiction based on SETI / first contact is that the subject often ends up being used as a metaphor for the human condition and the difficulty of really communicating with other people. Which is fine, but doesn't make for satisfying SF in my experience.)
Much of Seveneves was depressing too but it all seemed very plausible. It was in what came next that seemed off.
(Possible mild spoiler ahead)
[1] Basically: "the forest is full of hunters of unknown strength, so either stay quiet or kill all the hunters." I thought that Greg Bear's Forge of God and Anvil of Stars did a much better job on this aspect of Fermi.
This is true for relatively low power omni-directional broadcast signals such as terrestrial TV and radio. The signals proposed by the METI community (and those that have already been sent - e.g. from Arecibo) are broadcast at much higher power using a concentrated beam, and would be detectable over interstellar distances using technology similar to that which we have now.
Still this is not a movie where the aliens are on next moon so even if they picked up the signals it would long after the next few generations die off (Light years away - Man they are damn far off). (living in a developing country would give you a whole new perspective on energy scarcity)
In this case, if sending a signal into space takes a lot of energy and if energy is scarce, then it's a waste of energy regardless of if the government provides it or a private donor.
EDIT: I'm not saying this is true in this particular case (I'm also not saying that its not true), I'm merely stating that whether something is a waste doesn't matter on who is doing the wasting. I would gladly listen to a counter argument and maybe a discussion can be had, but I guess its easier to click a down arrow. Oh well. (Yes, yes, I know it'll happen even more due to my mentioning it)
[1] http://io9.gizmodo.com/5784658/so-you-want-to-send-a-message...
[2] http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-resources/w...
I wasn't taking any sides on this issue, so its not really relevant how much energy it took. I said "if" it is and it was a hypothetical to give a concrete example, not a statement that I thought it was wasteful.
I'll paraphrase:
If <something> is hypothetically wasteful, then <something> is still wasteful regardless of who did it.
Yeah but they would need interstellar-type of timescale to reach us anyway even if they moved at a fraction of speed of light, so the risk is close to nil. We are way, way more likely to be hit by an asteroid or to destroy our planet than to be destroyed by a very remote alien civilization.
If you pinpoint its origin to light years away, you know they already had a lot of time to progress past this technology. A good response if you plan on eliminating them would not be a fleet: you'd better setup and direct a huge gamma-ray burst in their general direction.
So the destructive response could come at the speed of light with a little delay at first.
I'd think a truly space faring race would probably have very different goals to us and the currency of culture would be much more valuable than natural resources which surely are abundant if space travel is trivial to you. Looking at it that way we'd have a hell of a lot to offer.
I guess that this comment is based on our technologies that we have _now_....
Folks spend lifetimes thinking of philosophy or working on a single science problem. In addition, we are still exploring oceans, depths of volcanos, and we explore space as much as we can without actually travelling to the places ourselves. We research animals and our own bodies. Some folks spend a lifetime making music. Not all of these has a payback outside of satisfying curiosity or enjoyment, at least not upfront.
Considering this, why would it seem odd that a race would explore what there is to explore?
Tipping off a rogue sentient AI that killed off their own creators is what I am more afraid of.
That kind of AI would be more busy harvesting new worlds than trying to care about an inferior species like ours (and they would likely not even be in the vicinity so no reason to travel up to us either).
favorite quote about the possibility concerning all of this Arthur C. Clarke — 'Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.'
Other possibilities:
- The sentient / strong AI may have (developed) FTL travel / signalling capabilities which from our current understanding does not seem to be possible.
- The AI may have sent out scouts millions of years ago into multiple directions. The closest scout only needs to decide to conquer / harvest our planet.
- A combination of the above, for example: FTL signalling and activating scouts where needed.
I have heard this line of reasoning often, but it's not clear to me that the logic is correct. I don't think an entity's treatment of itself necessarily implies much about the way it will treat others.
... unless you consider that all life on this planet began with the same chemicals, and that many different organisms are codependent, the most obvious being plants and animals.
Truly, interstellar existence, once confirmed that we're not alone, may also require teamwork. Perhaps ET is just waiting for us to demonstrate that we don't intend to destroy our planet for the benefit of a few selfish short-lived creatures in Earth's long history.
Some points I like: - A very advanced lifeform may view us the way that we view plants, so basic that wiping them out for convenience sake is not even something that enters the realm of our ethics - we just do it. I imagine aliens coming to Earth and seeing us humans on it eliciting a response like one of us opening a container in the fridge and going "Eww mould" (ewww Primates) and then washing it all clear with hot water.
- One would think that extra-species aggression would be a trait favorably selected by Darwinian evolution, so super-hostile aliens would survive and propagate. Hopefully that's negated by a post-scarcity advanced alien economy?
- In the universe sentience is relatively rare, so finding another race is something that should be treasured, cherished and nurtured.
- Maybe they'll see us as pets, and shower us with gifts
What other scenarios can you think of? I especially like thinking about what happens when there's large intellectual differentials ...
There are many lofty, high minded goals one could consider; exploration, discovery, species/ecosphere survival in the face of an imminent global threat. Finding, enslaving, or eliminating other sentient life forms? I can't see how this could be the goal of any civilization. Maybe the same impulse that could lead to organizing such an incredible, global effort to build the interstellar infrastructure in the first place could also dictate this less savory motives, ie religious zealotry ie Church of Galactic Subjugation.
The above is speaking to a possible interstellar civilization and not much more than our tech level.
Across from the Optimists sat the Pessimists, who genuflected before graven images of St. Fermi and a host of lesser lightweights. The Pessimists envisioned a lonely universe full of dead rocks and prokaryotic slime. The odds are just too low, they insisted. Too many rogues, too much radiation, too much eccentricity in too many orbits. If the galaxy were alive with intelligence, wouldn't it be here by now?
Equidistant from the two tribes sat the Historians. They didn't have many thoughts on the probable prevalence of intelligent, spacefaring extraterrestrials. But if there are any, they said, they're not just going to be smart. They're going to be mean. The reason wasn't merely Human history, the ongoing succession of greater technologies griding lesser ones beneath their boots. No, the real issue was what tools are for. To the Historians, tools existed for only one reason: to force the universe into unnatural shapes. They treated nature as an enemy, they were by definition a rebellion against the way things were.
Technology is a stunted thing in benign environments, it never thrived in any culture gripped by belief in natural harmony. Why invent fusion reactors if your climate is comfortable, if your food is abundant? Why build fortresses if you have no enemies? Why force change upon a world that poses no threat?
Human civilization had a lot of branches, not so long ago. Even into the twenty-first century, a few isolated branches had barely developed stone tools. Some settled down with agriculture. Others weren't content until they had ended nature itself. Still others had built cities in space. We all rested eventually, though. Each new technology trampled lesser ones, climbed to some complacent asymptote, and stopped. But history never said that everyone had to stop where we did. There could be other, more hellish worlds where the best Human technology would crumble, where the environment was still the enemy.
The threats contained in those environments would not be simple ones. Harsh weather and natural disasters either kill you or they don't, and once conquered — or adapted to — they lose their relevance. No, the only environmental factors that continued to matter were those that fought back, that countered strategies with newer ones, that forced their enemies to scale ever-greater heights just to stay alive. Ultimately, the only enemy that mattered was an intelligent one.
And if the best toys do end up in the hands of those who've never forgotten that life itself is an act of war against intelligent opponents, what does that say about a race whose machines travel between the stars?
- Peter Watts, Blindsight, via http://akkartik.name/post/2012-11-21-07-09-03-soc
My shortlist of hard sci-fi authors that have really interesting ideas about extraterrestrial life: Peter Watts (above) and Greg Egan. Liu Cixin has also become popular recently, but he's not quite as hard sci-fi and also (in my opinion) not as intellectually stimulating. Still a good read though. Ted Chiang has some decent ET stuff (one of his stories was recently adapted to the film Arrival), but I like his biblical fiction and philosophical sci-fi more.
If humans are actually a very clever form of AI crafted by some thing unknown to us, whatever it may be, are we in-fact "artificial?" What if it goes further back: All living things on earth have an origin in an organic artificial intelligence experiment and humans are simply an interesting result?
It may sound far out and perhaps even stupid, but as long as we're talking about AI killing its originator ... it's a legitimate question: Is discerning between Artificial/Natural intelligence even valid outside of planet earth?
Edit: Maybe the word 'program' is what I'm not liking, and your answer is actually legit
Depending on its adaptability that something may outgrow what supports and created it (nature, energy sources, their intelligent / sentient creators etc.).
"If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn’t turn out well for the Native Americans."
The picture of Carl Sagan at the top of the article says it all. These kinds of initiatives are always started by persons who want to pose as visionaries.
I mean just consider HUMANS finding an alien civilization first; Do you think the outcome will be the same whether the US gets to them first, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or the Japanese or Indians?
Will every nation on Earth have the same reaction and the same plans for dealing with the alien civilization? No, right?
..I think a civilization capable of interstellar travel will have EVEN MORE factions and subgroups with conflicting interests.
Interstellar travel implies a high likelihood that they have already colonized multiple planets, and it’s very unlikely that the governments of multiple planets would agree with each other on all matters, even if they could communicate fast enough, let alone on how to deal with alien civilizations..