A Warp Drive Is Within Our Reach, Apparently.

[Infernai]

I think I read somewhere that if the age of the universe was measured on a clock, we would currently be 2 minutes past midnight on the first day.

What that means, is that the universe is still very young, and that humanity may very well be the first advanced species.

You see all this sci-fi stuff, well it turns out that humanity may be the Vulcans, the Asari. We are the ancient race that discovers younger civilisations

Awesome, that means we're allowed to colonize some big mountainous planet and create a whole bunch of in-built cities and also allow our entire collective race to wear hooded cloaks and robes as well as act all "Jedi-like".

Humans would likely live in some secluded part of the universe that's naturally very hard to reach. Obviously this is done to weed out the 'non-important' concerns, but when someone DOES actually land it means there's probably some pretty bad shit going on out there that we need to help out with if they wanted to get through to us so badly.

Why? Because nearly every other "Messiah Race" in Sci-Fi have done these things.

 

[Waffle_Man]

This constructs a straw man argument. I demonstrated a predilection for violence for sport and entertainment. The perceived value (or cost) of such action has nothing to do with my point nor does your counter argument undermine my own.

If that's the case, then I'd have to say that your argument had absolutely nothing to do with mine. You went into various reasons that human beings commit violence against other beings without a seemingly good reason. My point wasn't that there aren't people who commit violence violence for what we might think of as less then "sensible" reasons. Rather, it's that the absurdly high resource expenditure required to do such in the given senario. You can argue all day about "sport this" and "nihilism that," but it's simply nonsensical to think that any circumstance would lead to someone to us a patriot missile to open a door. The results will never justify the energy expenditure.

That's excellent since I never asserted a "stupid" (an inflammatory word with no value given we are unlikely to agree upon a "smart" use of violence that is inclusive and utterly satisfactory) use of violence. Rather that violence is and has long been used for a variety of means.

That's not the point. The whole reason that we have rockets in the first place is because our society naturally selects those who are able to maximize the gain from energy expenditure. There is a reason that our modern world isn't run by people who go around raping and pillaging villages for the sake of it. The places that are run by those kinds of people don't travel into space all that often.

There are people who purchase private jets and fly around the world to "punch people in the face". These include: mercenary organizations (literal use of force perpetrated by an entity not representing a government directly and often not acting at the request of a recognized government), sportsmen (literal use of force against varying entities) and so on.

Mercenary organizations don't just go around killing people for the random shit of it and most people that do big game hunting usually either do it within the realm of the law. I suppose you could make the argument that there are sociopaths out there that do all sorts of weird things. No doubt, if travel between worlds were a regular thing, there would be violence on an individual level against aliens just as there is violence on an individual level against people, but the original question was what we as a people would do.

These two things are both within the capacity of human beings, but people who would logically connect the two usually don't conform to society in a way that affords them the required resources.

Generally because they perceive they have something to gain I expect. The reasons are as varied as the scenarios an actors themselves.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but I'll leave it in just so that it doesn't seem like I'm ignoring part of your argument.

Such as?

A non inclusive list that makes no absolute suppositions about those involved (in other words, not all examples are necessarily going to apply): sport,

This isn't an action by we as a people. Even if it were, it would be (barring some society of harmless blobs that wouldn't be all that interesting to hunt anyway) significantly more dangerous and thus far less wide spread activity.

nihilistic expression of power

Because we can?

ideology,

Because screw aliens?

secure a resource

Definitely not. Any conceivable resource that we could gather at the rare habitual planet is available in much greater quantities on any number of completely uninhabited celestial bodies. It would be like blast mining petroglyphs to get gravel.

secure the aid of another

This seems like a far likelier scenario if you consider: A. finding a second intelligent race of beings, B. who have already been in contact with first race of beings enough to hate them, C. and are willing and to give us aid with something when they themselves haven't been able to obliterate said alien beings. I suppose it's not impossible, but I don't know if you've considered the probability of that scenario.

countering a perceived threat (including simple xenophobia).

If the aliens were really less advanced then us, it would be pretty hard make out a race several billions of miles away as a credible threat.

The basis has been made historically. The trends indicate that the likelihood of any two people going to war is mitigated by perceived similarities between the two. In general, large scale support for war or violence or tyranny is achieved only when a population is able to claim their opposites are somehow lesser examples of humanity. This ignores other casus belli of course since perceived inferiority simply makes it easier to justify going to war for some perceived gain.

If you want to assume that history has been an unending chain of nothing but persecution and war (and if you want to assume that scarcity and supply had nothing to do with the way in which old civilizations interacted) then by all means, use history as a reason for humanity deciding to go to war with a distant alien race. If you look at the vast majority of conflicts in history most (though not all) have been strongly related to proximity or resources in some fashion or other. I highly doubt proximity is an issue with extra-terrestiral civilizations.

Various religions and some subset of those who follow said religions do not believe in the existence of other intelligent life besides humans. These include: Judaism, Christinaity, and Islam notably. You can agree or not with the interpretation of particular bits of the old testament that lead to this assumption - I for one think it is foolish. But, regardless, to assert that there are other intelligent beings in the universe generally goes against the doctrine that teaches man is unique in his intellect and thus asserts to the contrary would, by definition be blasphemy.

Where do people keep reading this stuff? The only people I have ever heard call the idea of extra-terrestirals blasphemous in the eyes of religious people is those who talk about the effects religion will have on first contact. I know for a fact that Judaism and Christianity have absolutely nothing to say about the existence or non-existance of extra-terrestrials and most people I know of who have studied the Quran would say that it isn't a contradictory idea. I suppose that someone might use scripture as an argument for their non-existance, but I haven't heard of them.

 

[Ascarus]

that article is a bit ridiculous. first it mentions the need for some "exotic matter, (that) would cause space-time to warp around the starship" ... exotic matter, really? that's helpful.

and i am not sure this means:

He found in that case, the warp drive could be powered by a mass about the size of a spacecraft like the Voyager 1 probe NASA launched in 1977.

according to NASA Voyager 1s mass is currently around 733kg. if he means we have to turn that much mass into energy, well good luck with that. that is FAR more than the energy output of even the biggest nuclear weapons.

using E=mc2, the energy output of that mass is 6.5879e+19 Joules. in 2008 the power consumption of the entire world (according to wikipedia) was an order of magnitude LESS than that amount.

yeah, you do the math.

 

[Ascarus]

I think I read somewhere that if the age of the universe was measured on a clock, we would currently be 2 minutes past midnight on the first day.

What that means, is that the universe is still very young, and that humanity may very well be the first advanced species.

You see all this sci-fi stuff, well it turns out that humanity may be the Vulcans, the Asari. We are the ancient race that discovers younger civilisations

i am not sure i like the analogy of the authors you read drew, but this timeline ALWAYS blows my mind ...

[link]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future[/link]

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Sweet, hope we start getting hoverboards and self lacing shoes by 2015...

[sub][sub]It better fucking happen, or Back to the Future lied to me[/sub][/sub]

Great Scott!

OT: While the idea is exciting that we'll be able to do it at somepoint, maybe.... I'm more than enough of a realist to understand it isn't happening in my lifetime. Or, if it does, I won't be able to go into space.

Kind of a bummer but whatever.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

If that's the case, then I'd have to say that your argument had absolutely nothing to do with mine. You went into various reasons that human beings commit violence against other beings without a seemingly good reason.

I never made comment about the reason for violence. That isn't terribly important to my initial assertion as my assertion is simple: violence between mankind and a technologically inferior species is likely because human history is full of circumstances where precisely that interaction has occurred.

That's not the point. The whole reason that we have rockets in the first place is because our society naturally selects those who are able to maximize the gain from energy expenditure. There is a reason that our modern world isn't run by people who go around raping and pillaging villages for the sake of it. The places that are run by those kinds of people don't travel into space all that often.

I don't disagree with your reasoning - people are generally able to justify to themselves why they commit to an act of violence. Trying to fish for very specific reasons is a pointless endeavor.

Mercenary organizations don't just go around killing people for the random shit of it and most people that do big game hunting usually either do it within the realm of the law.

Blackwater and poaching are two examples of where you're quite mistaken on both accounts but that isn't terribly important.

This isn't an action by we as a people. Even if it were, it would be (barring some society of harmless blobs that wouldn't be all that interesting to hunt anyway) significantly more dangerous and thus far less wide spread activity.

You're supposing very specific things about the scenario that are not present in the original thought experiment. I can imagine plenty of circumstances where no violence would take place just as I can imagine those where violence would be all but inevitable.

Because we can?

It has been used before as

Because screw aliens?

A simplistic reason. Others could include any current, ancient or yet to be formed religious or philosophical convention. Because that's implicit in the use of the word ideology.

Definitely not. Any conceivable resource that we could gather at the rare habitual planet is available in much greater quantities on any number of completely uninhabited celestial bodies. It would be like blast mining petroglyphs to get gravel.

I don't think you get to be in the position to make a value judgement of any resource when the cost of acquisition and transportation of the material or the usefulness and desirability are unknown.

This seems like a far likelier scenario if you consider: A. finding a second intelligent race of beings, B. who have already been in contact with first race of beings enough to hate them, C. and are willing and to give us aid with something when they themselves haven't been able to obliterate said alien beings. I suppose it's not impossible, but I don't know if you've considered the probability of that scenario.

It doesn't have to be an alien. I am not presuming who the parties involved are of what their motivations are. These are things I cannot possibly know. It was simply an example of a plausible reason why violence might ensue.

If the aliens were really less advanced then us, it would be pretty hard make out a race several billions of miles away as a credible threat.

And, yet, terrorism peers menacingly from the bushes.

If you want to assume that history has been an unending chain of nothing but persecution and war

It has been.

(and if you want to assume that scarcity and supply had nothing to do with the way in which old civilizations interacted)

I am making no such assumption. I agree that war generally has a casus belli in some form or fashion. I am also certain that scarcity and supply are two things that have yet to go away nor are they likely to.

then by all means, use history as a reason for humanity deciding to go to war with a distant alien race.

We already have engaged in wars with distant "alien" races here on earth. We have already encountered various groups that are technologically inferior. We did not treat them well.

If you look at the vast majority of conflicts in history most (though not all) have been strongly related to proximity or resources in some fashion or other. I highly doubt proximity is an issue with extra-terrestiral civilizations.

Proximity is relative to ease and speed of travel.

Where do people keep reading this stuff? The only people I have ever heard call the idea of extra-terrestirals blasphemous in the eyes of religious people is those who talk about the effects religion will have on first contact.

The old testament's creation myth places mankind first among all animals because we are intelligent. How one interprets this myth with respect to an aliens is taken on a case by case basis. A fundamentalist interpretation would lead to the assertion of intelligent aliens as blasphemy in such a case.

26 Then God said, ?Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.?

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, ?Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.?

29 Then God said, ?I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground?everything that has the breath of life in it?I give every green plant for food.? And it was so.

There's one such passage one could use to come to a similar conclusion.

I know for a fact that Judaism and Christianity have absolutely nothing to say about the existence or non-existance of extra-terrestrials

Explicitly? Nope. Nor does it say anything explicitly and without ambiguity about sexual intercourse and peculiarities thereof. Doesn't stop people from using it as the basis to make decisions about proper sex now does it?

and most people I know of who have studied the Quran would say that it isn't a contradictory idea. I suppose that someone might use scripture as an argument for their non-existance, but I haven't heard of them.

Islam's holy books include the Old Testament.

 

[Waffle_Man]

I never made comment about the reason for violence. That isn't terribly important to my initial assertion as my assertion is simple: violence between mankind and a technologically inferior species is likely because human history is full of circumstances where precisely that interaction has occurred.

I know that you're trying to make that point. What I'm trying to get across is that there is such a large difference governing how people would interact with beings across a trillion miles vs a few hundred or thousand and how people would interact with species that can only be reached through very technologically and fuel intensive means vs a three week march. Just as there is a difference with how one would interact with a family member who lives next door vs. one who lives on the other side of the world.

I don't disagree with your reasoning - people are generally able to justify to themselves why they commit to an act of violence. Trying to fish for very specific reasons is a pointless endeavor.

The point isn't that someone couldn't start a war with aliens for petty reasons and then justify it, it's that such a conflict would be so resource intensive that it would be hard to purposefully be petty in such a situation.

Blackwater and poaching are two examples of where you're quite mistaken on both accounts but that isn't terribly important.

Notice how I only tied "mercenaries" with "not doing stuff for the shit of it" and used a qualifier for big game hunters. Of course Blackwater has done illegal and of course there are poachers. But as you said, that's not important.

You're supposing very specific things about the scenario that are not present in the original thought experiment. I can imagine plenty of circumstances where no violence would take place just as I can imagine those where violence would be all but inevitable.

What do you think would happen to us as a people and society should we one day find out that we're the dominant species in the galaxy?

Granted, I suppose I am under the assumption that we won't have a bunch of star trek space magic that allows us to travel with seemingly endless amount of fuel and with the ability to fix complicated stuff in transit, thus making any conceivable journey a very big and risky investment. My bad for not mentioning that.

Because we can?

It has been used before as

Care to name an instance where an entire society decided to be dickish solely for the hell of it at a great cost of resources without some sort of material gain?

Because screw aliens?

A simplistic reason. Others could include any current, ancient or yet to be formed religious or philosophical convention. Because that's implicit in the use of the word ideology.

It would take a lot for enough people to get behind such a belief system with strong enough conviction to expend an untold amount of earth's wealth on a force capable of doing all sorts of nasty things to an extra-terrestrial race trillions of miles away.

I don't think you get to be in the position to make a value judgement of any resource when the cost of acquisition and transportation of the material or the usefulness and desirability are unknown.

I suppose some huge paradigm shift in the entirety of astronomy might reveal some unforeseen thing that happens to exist only on the planet in question, but until then, it's impossible to describe just how many raw materials are accessible from decidedly less habitable places. I suppose a fringe scenario is that earth is facing imminent doom and we find a planet that we can live on which is already habitable. It's still indescribably improbable though.

Still, I know for a fact that there are abundant natural resources in places with no signs of life much closer to us than place that could hypothetically hold life, I know for a fact that space is a massive place, and I know for a fact that crossing it at any speed takes a long time.

Of course, I could just turn that assumption on it's head and say that it's an assumption on your part that they would even have any resources worth having, but I don't need to.

It doesn't have to be an alien. I am not presuming who the parties involved are of what their motivations are. These are things I cannot possibly know. It was simply an example of a plausible reason why violence might ensue.

Any situation in which we do something for aid makes many assumptions. Unless we live in some sort of Star Trek-esq universe inhabited by all sorts of intergalactic intrigue, why would someone have a preexisting hate of an extra-terrestrial race?

And, yet, terrorism peers menacingly from the bushes.

Blowing up buildings and "looking at us funny" are a world apart. Aside from that, not all of the middle east is as backwater and primitive as some westerns like to make out. Israel isn't exactly afraid of Iran developing an oversize slingshot.

If you want to assume that history has been an unending chain of nothing but persecution and war

It has been.

I suppose all trade is just another means of keeping the man down.

I am making no such assumption. I agree that war generally has a casus belli in some form or fashion. I am also certain that scarcity and supply are two things that have yet to go away nor are they likely to.

Ok, but how exactly do extra-terrestrials affect scarcity and supply on earth? Because both of them, being the two primary agitators in a conflict, would likely not be present in such an interaction.

We already have engaged in wars with distant "alien" races here on earth. We have already encountered various groups that are technologically inferior. We did not treat them well.

That on a completely different scale for a very tangible gain (on the invader's part). I very much doubt that the Americas would have been brutalized to the point that they were if it weren't for the considerable booty to be had. Plus, the difficulty of crossing an ocean and running into a land form is a bit more difficult than traveling across a solar system.

Proximity is relative to ease and speed of travel.

When you travel on a boat over the ocean, even using primitive technology, you can cover the distance in a couple of months. Going ten times the speed of light (the maximum theoretical proposed speed of the warp drive in question), it would still take a minimum of thirty six years to reach Pleides, the nearest star cluster. There is a difference.

The old testament's creation myth places mankind first among all animals because we are intelligent. How one interprets this myth with respect to an aliens is taken on a case by case basis. A fundamentalist interpretation would lead to the assertion of intelligent aliens as blasphemy in such a case.

Explicitly? Nope. Nor does it say anything explicitly and without ambiguity about sexual intercourse and peculiarities thereof. Doesn't stop people from using it as the basis to make decisions about proper sex now does it?

I suppose you could draw parallels between people using religion to justify racism and justification for oppressing extra-terrestrials, but it would be making assumptions. Most of the irrational things that religion causes people to cling on to came from some practical need (regardless of how removed it became). What practical concern would cause all of the aliens to be hated all of the sudden?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I know that you're trying to make that point. What I'm trying to get across is that there is such a large difference governing how people would interact with beings across a trillion miles vs a few hundred or thousand and how people would interact with species that can only be reached through very technologically and fuel intensive means vs a three week march. Just as there is a difference with how one would interact with a family member who lives next door vs. one who lives on the other side of the world.

I'm aware there was a difference in scale. But, again, history has shown quite an easy to follow trend. In the earliest parts of recorded history we fought with one another for a variety of reasons with those who could be reached by a reasonable army on foot. The technology limited maximum engagement size and range. Time progressed and maximum engagement size and range increased - no longer just the neighboring tribal lands but neighboring cities and kingdoms. Later still nations and continents.

What has been proposed is a device that makes the nearest star reachable in a similar amount of time as the new world was in the age of sail. Wars of conquest were launched when doing so greatly taxed nations in spite of the abundance of resources they had at their disposal.

To put it another way - there are 53 known stars or brown dwarfs within 10 light years of earth - defining a maximum one way trip of 1 year (a feat equaled repeatedly in the age of sail, albeit with several stops along the way). Of those, five are currently believed to have planets. Do any of them have life? Probably not - but that's not really important - it simply demonstrates that our very local space is packed with stuff when the speed of light is a trivial concern.

Given that the question explicitly states that we are the most advanced life in the galaxy, it can be assumed that we have the means to explore a significant percentage of the universe. Which directly implies that that 10c speed limit probably doesn't come in to play since a trip from our side to galactic center would take a few millenia at that speed - slow enough that any inventory would take millions of ships thousands of years to complete.

Thus, given the operating parameters of the thought experiment, it stands to reason that if we know this information, then we have a means to gather a sufficient force of FTL vessels that travel at a significant enough speed in excess of c to be useful for resource gathering or conflict.

The point isn't that someone couldn't start a war with aliens for petty reasons and then justify it, it's that such a conflict would be so resource intensive that it would be hard to purposefully be petty in such a situation.

A petty reason is a matter of perspective. Recapturing the holy land was done because some guy who might have been the son of god may have lived his life there. That's a fairly petty reason. But sufficient to launch a number of crusades in an age when attempting to support such a conflict was madness.

Granted, I suppose I am under the assumption that we won't have a bunch of star trek space magic that allows us to travel with seemingly endless amount of fuel and with the ability to fix complicated stuff in transit, thus making any conceivable journey a very big and risky investment. My bad for not mentioning that.

In the scenario we have the power to explore a significant subset of the set of stars that have planets in our galaxy. Magic certainly seems to be involved to me.

Care to name an instance where an entire society decided to be dickish solely for the hell of it at a great cost of resources without some sort of material gain?

Entire societies? There aren't any because such people could not make a society. Plenty of individuals though. This being a cause for violence supposes it is possible for an individual or small collective to possess the means of interstellar travel. Arranging for violence upon arrival is trivial if that first condition is met.

It would take a lot for enough people to get behind such a belief system with strong enough conviction to expend an untold amount of earth's wealth on a force capable of doing all sorts of nasty things to an extra-terrestrial race trillions of miles away.

And, yet, societies have done that repeatedly. It may be a rare occurrence in the grand history of human conflict but it happens often enough to be useful.

I suppose some huge paradigm shift in the entirety of astronomy might reveal some unforeseen thing that happens to exist only on the planet in question, but until then, it's impossible to describe just how many raw materials are accessible from decidedly less habitable places. I suppose a fringe scenario is that earth is facing imminent doom and we find a planet that we can live on which is already habitable. It's still indescribably improbable though.

The value and utility of a resource vary depending upon proximity to a willing market.

I don't necessarily disagree with your point here - just that it is conceivable that circumstances could align to make conflict a possible solution to a resource shortage.

Of course, I could just turn that assumption on it's head and say that it's an assumption on your part that they would even have any resources worth having, but I don't need to.

Again, the worth of a resource (any resource) is relative. That relative bit is the part that's impossible to judge without having a very clear picture of what the galaxy looks like in this theoretical situation.

Any situation in which we do something for aid makes many assumptions. Unless we live in some sort of Star Trek-esq universe inhabited by all sorts of intergalactic intrigue, why would someone have a preexisting hate of an extra-terrestrial race?

Yes. I'm assuming the existence of at least three parties, one of whom lobbies another for aid against a third. I'm not assuming anything about those parties save that at least one of them is an alien possessing inferior technology and one of them is composed of some subset of humanity.

Blowing up buildings and "looking at us funny" are a world apart. Aside from that, not all of the middle east is as backwater and primitive as some westerns like to make out. Israel isn't exactly afraid of Iran developing an oversize slingshot.

Understatement is a rhetorical device. My point is no terrorist group known to the world possesses anywhere near the power the US wields and yet people often fear and hate them nontheless.

I suppose all trade is just another means of keeping the man down.

Some economic systems are designed for that purpose, yes.

More to the point, the 20th century saw more than 200 wars fought. Nations around the world often define themselves by wars of old. Examining the progress of society from the most ancient days of recorded history to present will show that the only thing sufficient to cause significant change with any reliability has been violence. Nations destroyed in such conflicts are dimly remembered. Any society that exists today is the result of countless wars leading to countless new societies each built upon the bones of what came before.

Ok, but how exactly do extra-terrestrials affect scarcity and supply on earth? Because both of them, being the two primary agitators in a conflict, would likely not be present in such an interaction.

Once again, any answer to this question is impossible without making grand suppositions beyond the scope of the thought experiment.

In one example, there is a resource of importance (say helium) to a human group. There are at least two sources of helium available - one from a gas giant where a 12 month round trip is necessary and another a mere month away. The latter is populated by a technologically inferior race who refuses to trade for the element. The cost savings of a shorter route are enormous and there exists one or more groups in this human element with the means to take the element by force.

In this insane scenario I just made up (that makes sweeping assumptions about travel, resource need and so forth which is required to have any accurate answer - which is why I've refrained from such things so far), I have demonstrated scarcity and supply that may prove sufficient casus belli.

That on a completely different scale for a very tangible gain (on the invader's part). I very much doubt that the Americas would have been brutalized to the point that they were if it weren't for the considerable booty to be had. Plus, the difficulty of crossing an ocean and running into a land form is a bit more difficult than traveling across a solar system.

Scale is variable as is potential gain. We can explore the galaxy freely. The reasonable maximum distance of travel for some gain in such a scenario presents is staggeringly huge.

My assertion is fundamentally that history has proven we will generally find a reason for violence of all sorts.

When you travel on a boat over the ocean, even using primitive technology, you can cover the distance in a couple of months. Going ten times the speed of light (the maximum theoretical proposed speed of the warp drive in question), it would still take a minimum of thirty six years to reach Pleides, the nearest star cluster. There is a difference.

Answered above I think.

I suppose you could draw parallels between people using religion to justify racism and justification for oppressing extra-terrestrials, but it would be making assumptions. Most of the irrational things that religion causes people to cling on to came from some practical need (regardless of how removed it became). What practical concern would cause all of the aliens to be hated all of the sudden?

Practical in the modern context? Hard to say. But as far as sociologists and psychologists can tell, people aren't exactly wired for practicality when it comes to group behavioral dynamics. Why is it practical to root for a particular sports team? Why is it practical for a handful of nations to control much of a given resource? Why is it practical for social cliques to form? Why is it practical that tension exist between such cliques?

These are all examples of a behavior that is largely no longer necessary. Sufficient resources exist for the reasonable survival and comfort of all people and the behaviors that drive us to such things has long ceased being terribly useful.

Is it possible that eventually these behaviors will vanish? Certainly. Is it possible that a technology will exist that make any concerns of resource irrelevant? Certainly. I'm just not betting on it. My bet is that somewhere between being able to explore the galaxy and solving the various problems above once and for all, there will be a time where people are not utterly pragmatic, where scarcity is still a problem and where we find someone that has something we want and is conveniently located. Because that is human history briefly expressed.

 

[Waffle_Man]

Granted, I suppose I am under the assumption that we won't have a bunch of star trek space magic that allows us to travel with seemingly endless amount of fuel and with the ability to fix complicated stuff in transit, thus making any conceivable journey a very big and risky investment. My bad for not mentioning that.

In the scenario we have the power to explore a significant subset of the set of stars that have planets in our galaxy. Magic certainly seems to be involved to me.

I was originally going to do another point by point retort, but I think this pretty much sums up why we aren't seeing eye to eye. I came into this thread from a view point of scientifically hard speculation, with the sole concessions being that such a warp drive was possible, that intelligent life exists on places other than earth, and that our current technological level was beyond that of any hypothetical race we came in contact with, rather than trying to apply vague notions of sociology to such a situation. I could argue all day about the laws and impracticalities that would tend to make such relationships unanalogous to relationships between people on earth, but if it's anything goes in this thread, then there is absolutely no unifying point of discussion. Given such context, I have absolutely no way to know if space Kim Jong Un is leading the glorious people's plant of unified earth, and I have no way of knowing if humanity is lead by zombie Jesus. However, at that point, it's all just a bunch of of opinions and supposition.

I found myself agreeing with most of your assessments of humanity, but I guess I really can't get anything out of this thread for the same reason I never get anything out of Zombie threads: The whole thing is an impossible situation anyway, and we have no idea what kinds of rules these particular zombies follow, so even if I spent about three years thinking about the subject, my thoughts would still be just as well as a sentence typed up over the space of a minute.

Oh well. I apologize if I caused you any frustration with my obtuseness.

 

[Vegosiux]

I don't believe in alien lifeformes . But if they did exist , they would probably be more intelligent than us or are the very least more united and structured . That being said , if hypothetically , we were the more intelligent of the two races , it would be most likely to be hostiles , if only because we would be unable to communicate with each other . Hell we can't even get along with orselves. Thus leading me to believe we would attack them , but be wiped out due to the lack of unity . Assuming we are on their home turf .

I forgot where this was from, but I think it's fitting.

Alien Commander: "So, this is Earth. Well, let's get down there and see what they're all about."
Alien Deputy: "Commander, they have nukes..."
Alien Commander: "Nothing that primitive can get through our shields."
Alien Deputy: "No, you don't understand, sir, they have nukes pointed at each other."
Alien Commander: "What?...okay, just move on and forget about this place."

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

Aren't you guys all sunshine and roses, eh? I should think that by the time we ever come into contact with an alien civilization, we would have completely obviated the need to drain of resources (technology makes better and better use of existing resources), or use them as a labour force (we're already reducing the need for manual labour before we even have advanced robotics).

You can't honestly expect to believe that what we'd have is some sort of Cortez repeat. Attitudes do change.

 

[Lester.]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but I'm pretty sure an Alcubierre's drive would break global causality and even local causality. Also, the design assumes matter and energy we don't know actually exists or may not even exist.

Also, even if you managed to pull off a working drive, what happens to the cosmic particles that get caught up in the warp bubble as you travel? This [http://io9.com/5889628/warp-drives-may-come-with-a-killer-downside] article covers that issue well. It could be used as a weapon for a fleet that wins a battle by simply showing up.

To sum up, I don't believe there's a form of FTL travel that doesn't break causality. As such, I don't believe that some extremely well-developed alien species would spend 50+ solar years to travel to earth only to draw crop circles and do flight formations over Phoenix.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I found myself agreeing with most of your assessments of humanity, but I guess I really can't get anything out of this thread for the same reason I never get anything out of Zombie threads: The whole thing is an impossible situation anyway, and we have no idea what kinds of rules these particular zombies follow, so even if I spent about three years thinking about the subject, my thoughts would still be just as well as a sentence typed up over the space of a minute.

That was really the basis of my argument. Since we know so little beyond the vague scenario, it is impossible to judge how we would react; however, where we differ it would seem is I tend to think humanity would likely engage in violence or tyranny because that is the historical trend while you believe that should such a scenario come to pass we would be beyond the usual petty concerns.

I don't disagree with you. I just can't agree without a clearer scenario.

Oh well. I apologize if I caused you any frustration with my obtuseness.

No frustration at all in fact. It was fun

 

[Combustion Kevin]

I like to think that mankind will be that "mysterious forgotten race" that leaves it's mark all over the galaxy but noone knows how they vanished.

then they discover earth, it's ruins and tragic history, it's accomplishments and glorious reign.

mankind doesn't have an ugly face masked by a false smile, it has a million faces, and as the aliens reflect on their own history, they learn from us, and unite before they destroy themselves, not just them but ALL the sentient beings in space, and form a council.

then they discover me in my cryo pod and worship me.

 

[Legion]

Just let me know when I can start booking flights off planet.

It will make the phrase "I don't want to live on this planet any more" have a whole new meaning.

 

[Waffle_Man]

That was really the basis of my argument. Since we know so little beyond the vague scenario, it is impossible to judge how we would react; however, where we differ it would seem is I tend to think humanity would likely engage in violence or tyranny because that is the historical trend while you believe that should such a scenario come to pass we would be beyond the usual petty concerns.

It isn't that I think humanity wouldn't want to act with it's normal petty concerns. My view of how society works isn't optimistic. Rather, my comments were along the lines of being unable to act on petty concerns simply due to the mind boggling practical concerns. But, as both of us have concluded, the scenario doesn't offer enough premises to make that judgement.

Still, the argument has passed, and for all intents and purposes, you've won.

No frustration at all in fact. It was fun

It's good to see that not everyone hates my love of confrontation. (^_^)

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't know . But thinking that we are the most intelligent lifeforme seems quite self-centered and egotistcal to me .

But that doesn't make it any more realistic that they'd be more advanced. There's no telling what is out there.

 

[krazykidd]

I don't know . But thinking that we are the most intelligent lifeforme seems quite self-centered and egotistcal to me .

But that doesn't make it any more realistic that they'd be more advanced. There's no telling what is out there.

That's true , but we are already the most intelligent on Our planet . It's possible , it would just surprise me . And i would let out a " REALLY UNIVERSE? REALLY?" .