Poll: First Contact - If Intelligent Aliens Arive, Would They Invade?

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I'm going to go with Stephen Hawking's thoughts on the matter. The technology required to get to our solar system from the closest star in a reasonable amount of time would be hilariously more advanced than anything we've even considered as a possibility. As such, any alien civilization that discovers us here on Earth would be hilariously more advanced than us.

History has shown us - granted, this is human history - that whenever a highly advanced civilization discovers an inferior civilization, the advanced one either exploits, enslaves, or utterly wipes out the inferior one.

The problem I have wit Stephen Hawking's thoughts on the matter is he just looks at the technological side of things, forgetting that progress is as much social and cultural, as it is technological. Remember that human history is also fraught with religious zealotry and blatant racism fueling the conquest of other civilizations. Any Alien species we encounter is likely to be far more socially advanced than that, other wise it's likely they'd have trouble getting to serious space faring interests, let alone interstellar travel, just like humans have. Also the assumption is that aliens that discover us would be similar to us, when we could be talking a herd species that really is just terrified of our nature, like say Larry Niven's aliens known as Pierson's Puppeteers. We could just as easily be discovered by a telepathic, empathic species that with so much mutual lack of comprehension that the idea of invading is just pointless too. We really can't assign human motive to a race that would be hilariously more advanced than us, because they probably wouldn't need earth, us, or our solar system for any realistic reasons.

 

[RJ 17]

The problem I have wit Stephen Hawking's thoughts on the matter is he just looks at the technological side of things, forgetting that progress is as much social and cultural, as it is technological. Remember that human history is also fraught with religious zealotry and blatant racism fueling the conquest of other civilizations. Any Alien species we encounter is likely to be far more socially advanced than that, other wise it's likely they'd have trouble getting to serious space faring interests, let alone interstellar travel, just like humans have. Also the assumption is that aliens that discover us would be similar to us, when we could be talking a herd species that really is just terrified of our nature, like say Larry Niven's aliens known as Pierson's Puppeteers. We could just as easily be discovered by a telepathic, empathic species that with so much mutual lack of comprehension that the idea of invading is just pointless too. We really can't assign human motive to a race that would be hilariously more advanced than us, because they probably wouldn't need earth, us, or our solar system for any realistic reasons.

Or they could arrive and see us as nothing more than a savage cancer of a species that is destroying an otherwise opulent - resource wise - planet and feel they'd be doing the galaxy a favor by wiping us out.

Just sayin'...

 

[Tayh]

We've got better toys than we did back in the Middle Ages. If we don't stop killing each other, we'll never reach interstellar travel. You can only play with matches so many times before you get burned, and the way we're headed, even stateless terrorists will have access to a lot more than just matches.

And if we did stop killing eachother, we might never have invented nuclear fission or space travel.
A lot of Humanity's advances were invented during war or conflict.
Would there have been interest in developing a nuclear bomb if there were nobody to use it on?
Would there have been so much incentive to go into space if there wasn't an arm's race going on?
Would the Roman roads have been built if it wasn't to make deploying of Legions faster?
Would the technology level of Europe have skyrocketed above the rest of the world if there hadn't been hundreds upon hundreds of years of armed conflicts to breed competition?
I'm sure there are many more examples.

Conflict breeds invention and competition. That's just how Humanity works.
There's a reason why most civilizations(using this word in a 'Civilization The Game' sense) that strived towards Peace and Transcendence eventually got conquered and, in some cases, completely wiped out.

As an aside, I once read this short story about a space-faring civilization reaching Earth with the intent to conquer, only to, when it's all too late, realize that Human technocology in warfare was a few hundreds years advanced.
http://imgur.com/gallery/yH5KS

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Or they could arrive and see us as nothing more than a savage cancer of a species that is destroying an otherwise opulent - resource wise - planet and feel they'd be doing the galaxy a favor by wiping us out.

Just sayin'...

Any species that sees us as a problem on our own planet is likely to have other options, being absurdly more advanced than us. They simply could sit back and open betting books on weather we'll wipe ourselves out, or unify and fix our problems, which would be far easier and more entertaining than wiping us out. On the other hand if they're morally opposed to how we're conducting ourselves, they're still likely to see us as valuable, because we're sapient life forms. They then could easily and covertly subvert us and remake our society into something they see as beneficial, which would be mutually beneficial to both us and them. It'd also require less resources and effort than wiping us out, while providing a net gain. Because honestly to wipe humanity off the planet they'd basically have to destroy the world. Which would damage resources and destroy native life, which also means reusing the planet would be far more difficult. Also talking resources, an absurdly more advanced species can probably produce the resources of earth with little, or no effort, so our resources would have little, or no meaning to them anyways.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Conflict breeds invention and competition. That's just how Humanity works.

Competition does not have to be in the form of an outright conflict, though.

In any case, the main point was that some time before being able to destroy another civilisation in another system, a civilisation has to develop the ability to destroy itself, something that was unknown throughout human history.

Imagine if the losing side of a war had the ability to devastate the biosphere...sooner or later someone would. Hence, it seems that war would have to be abandoned beforehand, or you don't get to progress very far.

Having said that, this is making a guess about what our future will be like, and nobody can really say for sure.

 

[MonsterCrit]

The need the conquer and dominate would be inherent in any intelligent life. To rise to the level of interstellar travel they would have to overcome all natural predatory forces and have control over access to all resources in their native biosphere. You don't get that way by being nice and peaceful.

But there's also a level of pragmatism. To invade , will take time and resources so the resources they would hope to gain would have to outweight the value of the resources they are expending. So unless the skin of our faces is like the equivalent of boner pills or spanishfly or the cure for cancer for their species. We're not likely to be worth the trouble to invade.

 

[Dalisclock]

Really depends what they are like and what they what. They may be thrilled to meet another intelligent species, disgusted by how insanely violent we may seem, see us the same way the Europeans saw the people of the lands they colonized(Either as primitives or a particularly clever form of beast) or ignore us completely.

They probably wouldn't bother to invade if they really did want to get rid of us. If they can travel across instellar space, it stands to reason it would be easy enough for them to grab a couple asteroids on the way in and redirect them to earth, which would be more then enough to knock civilization back a couple hundred years. And there wouldn't be much we could do about it either.

 

[dyre]

-snip-

The problem with Bostrom's theory in my opinion is that it relies on the idea that habitable worlds have been around for a long time, relatively speaking it's fairly possible that Earth like planets are only possible around stars with in our spectral class. Due in part to the fact that Blue-white stars don't last long enough to develop habitable worlds. Also most of the materials needed for life to be possible are only created by blue-white super giant stars. So generally speaking, life in the universe is probably only a few billion years old all told, just because it takes time to get the necessary resources developed by stars and gathered in high enough concentrations for life to happen.

Edit: Also it discounts any theory that evolution eventually results in a post physical species.

Also besides that extinction level events happen relatively often, even full scale nuclear war is very unlikely to wipe humanity off the face of the Earth. The only thing that can wipe life off the face of the planet are one of two things. The failure of Earth's magnetic field, or the sun entering red giant stage of it's life.

That was my first thought as well, but I find it to be statistically implausible. It could be that humanity is on the cutting edge of advanced life in this galaxy, but highly unlikely. Even if life-sustaining planets have only been around in this galaxy for the ~4.5 billion years that Earth has existed, then surely intelligent life will have evolved on other planets at slightly different rates. Some planets would be faster, some would be slower, but the order of magnitude by which we interpret "faster" and "slower" would be in the hundreds of millions of years. So, for your argument to apply, then you must believe not only that life-sustaining planets can only have existed for the past 4.5 billion years, but also that on every one of those planets among the 100+ billion stars of this galaxy, it takes at least 4.5 billion years for microorganisms to evolve into highly intelligent life. Earth, and humanity, would have to be literally the galaxy's best habitat for the evolution of intelligent life, which seems like a bit of a stretch.

I'm not aware of any academic consensus about "post-physical" species, can you elaborate?

Nuclear war might not wipe all humanity off the planet (I disagree on the "very unlikely"). There isn't a consensus on that. And even if it didn't wipe out every single human, it might reduce humanity to pockets of survivors below the minimum sustainable population threshhold, which would eventually die off. In any case, I was only using nuclear war as an example of self-inflicted extinction. By the time we have interstellar travel, we will probably come up with even more effective methods of mass destruction.

 

[RJ 17]

Any species that sees us as a problem on our own planet is likely to have other options, being absurdly more advanced than us. They simply could sit back and open betting books on weather we'll wipe ourselves out, or unify and fix our problems, which would be far easier and more entertaining than wiping us out. On the other hand if they're morally opposed to how we're conducting ourselves, they're still likely to see us as valuable, because we're sapient life forms. They then could easily and covertly subvert us and remake our society into something they see as beneficial, which would be mutually beneficial to both us and them. It'd also require less resources and effort than wiping us out, while providing a net gain. Because honestly to wipe humanity off the planet they'd basically have to destroy the world. Which would damage resources and destroy native life, which also means reusing the planet would be far more difficult. Also talking resources, an absurdly more advanced species can probably produce the resources of earth with little, or no effort, so our resources would have little, or no meaning to them anyways.

These are hypotheticals we're dealing with, right? I don't see why you're putting so much effort into trying to invalidate my opinion on the matter.

For all we know the first alien lifeform that contacts us could have received broadcasted McDonalds commercials and traced the signal as a means to seek out their one true god: Ronald McDonald.

Could be that aliens land and say "Yeah, we actually created you and all other life on this planet as a science experiment when we were mastering the intricacies of String Theory. Just thought you'd like to know that everything you call "religion" is a complete lie. It was all us."

Who knows? There could even be another race of humans out there amongst the stars!

Or there could be a race of hostile aliens that go from one star to the next searching for resource-rich planets who have some kind of beam-field weapon that they sweep across inhabited worlds that, when attuned to a species' DNA, would vaporize any lifeform containing that DNA. After all, as the saying goes: any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. A hostile alien force with the technology necessary to reach us could have a weapon that "purges" the planet of sentient life while leaving everything else intact.

 

[Thaluikhain]

For all we know the first alien lifeform that contacts us could have received broadcasted McDonalds commercials and traced the signal as a means to seek out their one true god: Ronald McDonald.

That would require them to be pretty close by, our signals haven't had time to reach very far.

Also, since there is a limited amount of McDonald's customers in deep space, they've not been too concerned about sending powerful advertising able to reach very far out.

 

[RJ 17]

For all we know the first alien lifeform that contacts us could have received broadcasted McDonalds commercials and traced the signal as a means to seek out their one true god: Ronald McDonald.

That would require them to be pretty close by, our signals haven't had time to reach very far.

Also, since there is a limited amount of McDonald's customers in deep space, they've not been too concerned about sending powerful advertising able to reach very far out.

And yet have you been inside a McDonalds lately? I'm quite certain a number of the customers in there the last time I went were aliens in disguise, MIB style.

 

[Thaluikhain]

For all we know the first alien lifeform that contacts us could have received broadcasted McDonalds commercials and traced the signal as a means to seek out their one true god: Ronald McDonald.

That would require them to be pretty close by, our signals haven't had time to reach very far.

Also, since there is a limited amount of McDonald's customers in deep space, they've not been too concerned about sending powerful advertising able to reach very far out.

And yet have you been inside a McDonalds lately? I'm quite certain a number of the customers in there the last time I went were aliens in disguise, MIB style.

Unless going to a McDonald's disqualifies one from being considered intelligent, that might have some bearing on this thread.

 

[RJ 17]

For all we know the first alien lifeform that contacts us could have received broadcasted McDonalds commercials and traced the signal as a means to seek out their one true god: Ronald McDonald.

That would require them to be pretty close by, our signals haven't had time to reach very far.

Also, since there is a limited amount of McDonald's customers in deep space, they've not been too concerned about sending powerful advertising able to reach very far out.

And yet have you been inside a McDonalds lately? I'm quite certain a number of the customers in there the last time I went were aliens in disguise, MIB style.

Unless going to a McDonald's disqualifies one from being considered intelligent, that might have some bearing on this thread.

See? The invasion has already begun! THEY'VE COME FOR OUR FAKE-MEAT CHEESEBURGERS!!!

 

[omega 616]

I think if an alien race is advanced enough to reach us, they have probably thought "there is no intelligent life there". We say Some primates and dolphins etc are intelligent but I don't see them driving or doing anything to really understand the world around them, we are astounded when they balance a ball on their nose.

So what if aliens see us like that? What if they are observing us like a planet sized zoo?

 

[RJ 17]

The point is that all things are possible[footnote]That really does mean that your scenarios could be true, I'm not saying they're totally impossible. In fact, if we live in an infinite universe or infinite multiverse, then not only is your scenario true in some of them, but it's true in an infinite number. Infinity is weird.[/footnote],

Yes, I played BS:Infinite too, and I can't wait to meet my Ronald McDonald worshiping aliens. :3

Beyond that, all I was saying in my original post (the one you quoted was a few posts removed fro my original post) was that I agreed with the notion Stephen Hawking put for that, judging by our history at least, whenever an advanced society encounters an inferior one, it tends not to work out so well for the inferior one.

You asked for one resource that Earth has that doesn't appear in abundance elsewhere? Humans, for one, is a resource that Earth has in abundance that can't be found elsewhere. Its also - by our standards - a habitable planet. Suppose an alien species is on a nomadic journey because their home world met with some catastrophic end. They find our planet, its conditions match the conditions they're require to inhabit it, and so they decide to "evict" us and claim our home as their own.

My point being that there could be any number of reasons for an alien civilization to be openly hostile towards us upon first contact. Just as there's any number of reasons for them to be peaceful - or at least ambivalent - towards us upon first contact. As a bit of a pessimist, though, I tend to lean towards the former.

 

[FalloutJack]

I'm going for 'impossible to tell'. We have so many ideas on the subject that are explored that we already known thait could go either way.

 

[The White Hunter]

While it is true that almost every resource can be collected easier without conquering the Earth, the Earth does have something rare, in the form of living things.

Want to wipe out everything that isn't you, or stick weird creatures in your alien zoo or whatnot, than the Earth is the place to visit.

Hell, for that matter, find a workforce, if the aliens are in a bad way.

Those are good points, but I think there are two things to consider. Any extraterrestrial species making interstellar trips can probably support the crew of a ship indefinitely with food. So that probably wouldn't be a reason to invade. Also getting examples of Earth life forms won't take a full invasion, just some covert snatching of specimens.

Wanting to wipe humanity out for reasons of xenophobia are quite possible, but equally possible is they wouldn't bother, because of not seeing us as a credible threat.

Slave labor, or some for of paid labor are possible, aliens might even want to employ us because we are capable of things that are physically impossible for them.

I would think a sufficiently advanced species capable of interstellar travel likely to be more curious about the universe than wanting to conquer our mudball, but who knows.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

That was my first thought as well, but I find it to be statistically implausible. It could be that humanity is on the cutting edge of advanced life in this galaxy, but highly unlikely. Even if life-sustaining planets have only been around in this galaxy for the ~4.5 billion years that Earth has existed, then surely intelligent life will have evolved on other planets at slightly different rates. Some planets would be faster, some would be slower, but the order of magnitude by which we interpret "faster" and "slower" would be in the hundreds of millions of years. So, for your argument to apply, then you must believe not only that life-sustaining planets can only have existed for the past 4.5 billion years, but also that on every one of those planets among the 100+ billion stars of this galaxy, it takes at least 4.5 billion years for microorganisms to evolve into highly intelligent life. Earth, and humanity, would have to be literally the galaxy's best habitat for the evolution of intelligent life, which seems like a bit of a stretch.

I'm not aware of any academic consensus about "post-physical" species, can you elaborate?

Nuclear war might not wipe all humanity off the planet (I disagree on the "very unlikely"). There isn't a consensus on that. And even if it didn't wipe out every single human, it might reduce humanity to pockets of survivors below the minimum sustainable population threshhold, which would eventually die off. In any case, I was only using nuclear war as an example of self-inflicted extinction. By the time we have interstellar travel, we will probably come up with even more effective methods of mass destruction.

Extinction level events are common occurrences, so life would have to evolve much faster other places than earth to justify this. As if you look at things that have happened on this planet, complex life is not a new thing, it just gets smacked down on a regular basis. Any intelligent species would have had to be able to prevent such things to be significantly more advanced than we are now, it's just as likely they'd be wiped out by a significant ELE if it happened to them at the stage we're at now, or earlier.

It's a loose theory that with enough time to evolve a species can evolve past the need for physical bodies. Like say uploading our selves to digital spaces, or evolving into energy based beings. There is no academic consensus yet because we've never even encountered such beings. That said it's also not impossible.

Considering that a lot of "academics" believe that Nuclear Winter is possible despite the theory it's possible was made by Carl Sagan, using a model of the earth that had no oceans, meaning a flawed pseudoscience theory at very best. The fact that humans live on every continent and many island in far greater than sustainable numbers, and our entire nuclear stock pike is a firecracker compared to a single comet strike. I call it highly unlikely that we'd be able to exterminate ourselves, a large majority of the population, sure, but we survived the ice ages, so we're pretty well resilient enough to survive anything we can do to our selves at this point.