Steven Hawking's most recent rumbles

[adsii1970]

A few days ago, while reading an article on Space.com, there was an article about Dr. Stephen Hawking's latest statement regarding the possibility of alien life. In short, he said that if we do encounter life in space, it will be much more technologically advanced, would probably seek to conquer us, but we should seek it out nonetheless. I found his statement to be presumptuous at best for a few reasons:

1. What about if us - on earth - are the most technologically advanced? Yes, I know the earth is not that old but what if...? Surely there is room in the scientific community to inquire into this possibility.

2. What if we are actually the descendants of a space-faring species, much like is written in Issac Asimov's Foundation series? What if human life did begin on another world, much like the prelude on the original Battlestar Galactica series from 1979... If this is the case, then it is possible that the advanced life out there would not see us as a species to be conquered, but as a colony to be refined to its fullest potential. The question would then become "what is our true purpose."

3. Hawking places the teachings of Charles Darwin in the driver's seat; the idea that a superior organism would use its abilities to conquer lesser organisms is a part of the natural world BUT... any advanced organism would have similar traits of curiosity, compassion, etc. Not all would be ALIEN-like predators or bent on the enslavement of humanity.

There are more possibilities than what Dr. Hawking proposes; what I want to know is how does he become a xeno-species expert?

[Tex_NL]

All your assumptions are equally valid to dr. Hawking's. He on the other hand has most likely thought about them a little more than you.

1. Yes, it's possible humanity is currently the highest developed species in the universe. However looking at the age of human society compared to the age of the universe it's highly unlikely.

2./3. Any dominant species is most likely descendent from a predatory species. A prey species will almost never dominate its environment. We can only hope a more developed species has the emotional maturity to have overcome their predatory instincts.

[Awaras]

1. http://waitbutwhy.com/es/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html - Basically, the age of the universe vs the age of the human race means that the odds of us finding a nearby alien species roughly at our own level of development is extremely low. Odds are that we would either find a planet with single-celled life or a civilization millions of years ahead of us. And if there is a species millions of years ahead of us, if interstellar travel was at all possible they would have probably colonised earth when our shrew-like ancestors were still hiding from the dinosaurs in tiny holes in the ground, so the question is where are they?

2. We are closely genetically related to ALL life on Earth, from the smallest bacteria to the blue whale. If WE are the descendants of a space faring species, than all life on earth is and that space faring species came here as a primitive single cell organism a few billion years ago - AKA panspermia...

3. http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/aliens.php (The bolded bits)

The great silence (i.e. absence of SETI signals from alien civilizations) is perhaps the strongest indicator of all that high relativistic velocities are attainable and that everybody out there knows it.

The sobering truth is that relativistic civilizations are a potential nightmare to anyone living within range of them. The problem is that objects traveling at an appreciable fraction of light speed are never where you see them when you see them (i.e., light-speed lag). Relativistic rockets, if their owners turn out to be less than benevolent, are both totally unstoppable and totally destructive. A starship weighing in at 1,500 tons (approximately the weight of a fully fueled space shuttle sitting on the launchpad) impacting an earthlike planet at "only" 30 percent of lightspeed will release 1.5 million megatons of energy -- an explosive force equivalent to 150 times today's global nuclear arsenal...

I'm not going to talk about ideas. I'm going to talk about reality. It will probably not be good for us ever to build and fire up an antimatter engine. According to Powell, given the proper detecting devices, a Valkyrie engine burn could be seen out to a radius of several light-years and may draw us into a game we'd rather not play, a game in which, if we appear to be even the vaguest threat to another civilization and if the resources are available to eliminate us, then it is logical to do so.

The game plan is, in its simplest terms, the relativistic inverse to the golden rule: "Do unto the other fellow as he would do unto you and do it first."...

When we put our heads together and tried to list everything we could say with certainty about other civilizations, without having actually met them, all that we knew boiled down to three simple laws of alien behavior:

THEIR SURVIVAL WILL BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR SURVIVAL.

If an alien species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. It is difficult to imagine a contrary case; species don't survive by being self-sacrificing.

WIMPS DON'T BECOME TOP DOGS.

No species makes it to the top by being passive. The species in charge of any given planet will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.

THEY WILL ASSUME THAT THE FIRST TWO LAWS APPLY TO US.

...

Your thinking still seems a bit narrow. Consider several broadening ideas:

Sure, relativistic bombs are powerful because the antagonist has already invested huge energies in them that can be released quickly, and they're hard to hit. But they are costly investments and necessarily reduce other activities the species could explore. For example:

Dispersal of the species into many small, hard-to-see targets, such as asteroids, buried civilizations, cometary nuclei, various space habitats. These are hard to wipe out.

But wait -- while relativistic bombs are readily visible to us in foresight, they hardly represent the end point in foreseeable technology. What will humans of, say, two centuries hence think of as the "obvious" lethal effect? Five centuries? A hundred? Personally I'd pick some rampaging self-reproducing thingy (mechanical or organic), then sneak it into all the biospheres I wanted to destroy. My point here is that no particular physical effect -- with its pluses, minuses, and trade-offs -- is likely to dominate the thinking of the galaxy.

So what might really aged civilizations do? Disperse, of course, and also not attack new arrivals in the galaxy, for fear that they might not get them all. Why? Because revenge is probably selected for in surviving species, and anybody truly looking out for long-term interests will not want to leave a youthful species with a grudge, sneaking around behind its back...

I agree with most parts of points 2, 3, and 4. As for point 1, it is cheaper than you think. You mention self-replicating machines in point 3, and while it is true that relativistic rockets require planetary power supplies, it is also true that we can power the whole Earth with a field of solar cells adding up to barely more than 200-by-200 kilometers, drawn out into a narrow band around the Moon's equator. Self-replicating robots could accomplish this task with only the cost of developing the first twenty or thirty machines. And once we're powering the Earth practically free of charge, why not let the robots keep building panels on the Lunar far side? Add a few self-replicating linear accelerator-building factories, and plug the accelerators into the panels, and you could produce enough anti-hydrogen to launch a starship every year. But why stop at the Moon? Have you looked at Mercury lately? ...

Dr. Wells has obviously bought into the view of a friendly galaxy. This view is based upon the argument that unless we humans conquer our self-destructive warlike tendencies, we will wipe out our species and no longer be a threat to extrasolar civilizations. All well and good up to this point.

But then these optimists make the jump: If we are wise enough to survive and not wipe ourselves out, we will be peaceful -- so peaceful that we will not wipe anybody else out, and as we are below on Earth, so other people will be above.

This is a non sequitur, because there is no guarantee that one follows the other, and for a very important reason: "They" are not part of our species.

Before we proceed any further, try the following thought experiment: watch the films Platoon and Aliens together and ask yourself if the plot lines don't quickly blur and become indistinguishable. You'll recall that in Vietnam, American troops were taught to regard the enemy as "Charlie" or "Gook," dehumanizing words that made "them" easier to kill. In like manner, the British, Spanish, and French conquests of the discovery period were made easier by declaring dark- or red- or yellow-skinned people as something less than human, as a godless, faceless "them," as literally another species.

Presumably there is some sort of inhibition against killing another member of our own species, because we have to work to overcome it...

But the rules do not apply to other species. Both humans and wolves lack inhibitions against killing chickens.

Humans kill other species all the time, even those with which we share the common bond of high intelligence. As you read this, hundreds of dolphins are being killed by tuna fishermen and drift netters. The killing goes on and on, and dolphins are not even a threat to us.

As near as we can tell, there is no inhibition against killing another species simply because it displays a high intelligence. So, as much as we love him, Carl Sagan's theory that if a species makes it to the top and does not blow itself apart, then it will be nice to other intelligent species is probably wrong. Once you admit interstellar species will not necessarily be nice to one another simply by virtue of having survived, then you open up this whole nightmare of relativistic civilizations exterminating one another.

It's an entirely new situation, emerging from the physical possibilities that will face any species that can overcome the natural interstellar quarantine of its solar system. The choices seem unforgiving, and the mind struggles to imagine circumstances under which an interstellar species might make contact without triggering the realization that it can't afford to be proven wrong in its fears.

Got that? We can't afford to wait to be proven wrong.

They won't come to get our resources or our knowledge or our women or even because they're just mean and want power over us. They'll come to destroy us to insure their survival, even if we're no apparent threat, because species death is just too much to risk, however remote the risk...

The most humbling feature of the relativistic bomb is that even if you happen to see it coming, its exact motion and position can never be determined; and given a technology even a hundred orders of magnitude above our own, you cannot hope to intercept one of these weapons. It often happens, in these discussions, that an expression from the old west arises: "God made some men bigger and stronger than others, but Mr. Colt made all men equal." Variations on Mr. Colt's weapon are still popular today, even in a society that possesses hydrogen bombs. Similarly, no matter how advanced civilizations grow, the relativistic bomb is not likely to go away...

We ask that you try just one more thought experiment. Imagine yourself taking a stroll through Manhattan, somewhere north of 68th street, deep inside Central Park, late at night. It would be nice to meet someone friendly, but you know that the park is dangerous at night. That's when the monsters come out. There's always a strong undercurrent of drug dealings, muggings, and occasional homicides.

It is not easy to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys. They dress alike, and the weapons are concealed. The only difference is intent, and you can't read minds.

Stay in the dark long enough and you may hear an occasional distance shriek or blunder across a body.

How do you survive the night? The last thing you want to do is shout, "I'm here!" The next to last thing you want to do is reply to someone who shouts, "I'm a friend!"

What you would like to do is find a policeman, or get out of the park. But you don't want to make noise or move towards a light where you might be spotted, and it is difficult to find either a policeman or your way out without making yourself known. Your safest option is to hunker down and wait for daylight, then safely walk out.

There are, of course, a few obvious differences between Central Park and the universe.

There is no policeman.

There is no way out.

And the night never ends.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Awaras

[megatiger78]

I suggest that we make first policy trying to kill it if it attacks us.

[Robotengineer]

But dude, Stephen Hawking is an alien. I mean, like, can't you see by the way he talks? He's and agent for them, you know? He's, like, trying to trick us into seeking them out, drawing us right into their trap man! It's a conspiracy, trust no one, you want to believe.

/Conspiracy nut.

It depends on whether the aliens like audacity and science, if they like it, they might let us live.

[Nuke]

im firmly in the 'conquer them first' category. we need to find them and kinetically bombard their cities, when the nuclear winter sets in we land the shock troops.

[adsii1970]

All your assumptions are equally valid to dr. Hawking's. He on the other hand has most likely thought about them a little more than you.

1. Yes, it's possible humanity is currently the highest developed species in the universe. However looking at the age of human society compared to the age of the universe it's highly unlikely.

2./3. Any dominant species is most likely descendent from a predatory species. A prey species will almost never dominate its environment. We can only hope a more developed species has the emotional maturity to have overcome their predatory instincts.

Actually, I've been pondering this since I first became interested in astronomy and related sciences since I was eight. The problem I have with the media focus on Hawking is that yes, the man is smart; however, there are many theories out there that deserve equal attention if we are truly going to have an academic discussion on the possibility of intelligent alien life. I proposed the current topic as a means to generate such discussion here in this forum, where I believe it could truly be an interesting and challenging discussion...

1. In the defense of humanity, most of our technological advancements happens in great spurts (for lack of a better term), the most recent being the miniaturization of technology we are currently witnessing and the increased micro-processing power of computers (we are nearing a stall point in computer technology according to some experts). These spurts are normally the outcropping of our volatile nature (even here in KSP, how long was it before the various armed mods began creeping into the game? ). Even if we just take the American Civil War, there were great advancements made in medicine, weaponry (Gatling Gun, Dirigibles as combat vehicles, submarines, ironclads, brass cartridges, and the repeating rifle), photography, and transportation. I would suspect if we did come into contact with a superior species through radio communications (such as SETI), we would undoubtedly begin to contemplate newer technologies and tactics to neutralize any perceived threat.

2. Not necessarily - one thing that the colonization of the New World has taught us is that genetics contains the key. There have been great strides in figuring out where various populations of peoples originated from based on the human genome. Now, I will admit I mainly threw out this point for the sole purpose of trying to generate discussion... but it does have some interesting ideas. What if xeno-human settlement occurred where a native humanoid species already existed and interbreeding occurred for a number of reasons (biological diversity for future generations to be able to survive within the biological conditions of the new home being one of these) as suggested in the SyFy Channel remake of Battlestar Galactica? Do not get me wrong, I am not saying the SyFy Channel is going to promote strong science (Sharknado, yeah, historical documentary on global climate change? ) however, the idea that a superior or advanced form of life would forsake technology as a means of ensuring survival is a common sci-fi theme for those, such as Issac Asimov, who saw the dangers of rampant technology usage.

3. I agree with you with the consideration of Darwinism into the alien life equation - but would throw out the possibility of a prey species forced to become technologically advanced. As is witnessed in Earth's biodiversity, there are creatures that have evolved defensive mechanisms (coloration, horns, chemical smells/poisons) to deter attacks by predators. Imagine if a planet had the development of a sentient organism that had been historically prey (I kind of think Kerbals here ). At some point, it would allow for the development of technology for a totally different purpose than for conquest (but would still be able to use such technology for an offensive purpose). One of the reasons I enjoyed Star Trek Voyager was because there were a few episodes that actually dealt with this sort of idea. Ideally, it would be one of these types of alien civilizations we would want to come into contact with...otherwise...

[Kerbart]

A few days ago, while reading an article on Space.com, there was an article about Dr. Stephen Hawking's latest statement regarding the possibility of alien life. In short, he said that if we do encounter life in space, it will be much more technologically advanced, would probably seek to conquer us, but we should seek it out nonetheless. I found his statement to be presumptuous at best for a few reasons:

1. What about if us - on earth - are the most technologically advanced? Yes, I know the earth is not that old but what if...? Surely there is room in the scientific community to inquire into this possibility.

I think that what Dr. Hawking means is, with the current state of technology, we do not have the means to run into other aliens. They will run into us, because it's certainly not up to our technology to search, find and encounter other civilisations. Hence, when there's contact with aliens, we're going to be the primitives and they're going to be explorers who discover us.

3. Hawking places the teachings of Charles Darwin in the driver's seat; the idea that a superior organism would use its abilities to conquer lesser organisms is a part of the natural world BUT... any advanced organism would have similar traits of curiosity, compassion, etc. Not all would be ALIEN-like predators or bent on the enslavement of humanity.

That's the Carl Sagan angle. For an alien race to be able to reach us, their technology is way more advanced than ours (doh). And their ability to destroy themselves in the process is also way more advanced. So, for an alien race to have the ability to reach other star systems, they must have weeded out aggression a long time ago or they would have destroyed themselves before they were able to reach the stars.

Personally I tend to go with Sagan. What would be the point for aliens to go to war with a bunch of primitives?

• Resources? They can just take it from the outer planets or other solar systems. Earth is not a unique source of resources, I think
  
• Slaves? As if you need manual labor when you have the technology to travel between stars.
  
• Evil? They'd succumbed to civil war a long time ago

The only reason they'd have to destroy us, is as a pre-emptive strike to prevent us from ruling over them, somewhere in the future.

[Shpaget]

any advanced organism would have similar traits of curiosity, compassion, etc. Not all would be ALIEN-like predators or bent on the enslavement of humanity.

Just like humans are not enslaving other species for food, work or entertainment?

[Technical Ben]

...

[edit] Ah, a mix of both ideas... a "we don't know" as the real answer? [/edit] There are symbioses and other animals that share resources and work together. There are many examples in nature where larger/different (advanced/complex are the wrong words to use) animals that depend on each other and work together. The more intelligent, the more likely for them to check before eating the other animal ("dumb" fish just gobble up anything near them ).

Edited July 30, 2015 by Technical Ben

[Tex_NL]

...

Personally I tend to go with Sagan. What would be the point for aliens to go to war with a bunch of primitives?

• Resources? They can just take it from the outer planets or other solar systems. Earth is not a unique source of resources, I think
  
• Slaves? As if you need manual labor when you have the technology to travel between stars.
  
• Evil? They'd succumbed to civil war a long time ago

...

I agree those three are no reasons for war with primitives for any alien species. But there is one clear reason they might want to 'remove' the current occupants: Lebensraum.

For an oxygen breathing alien species earth could be a very inviting place to colonize. If you find a nice house to settle in that happens to be infested with rats what do you do? You sweep out the rats.

[adsii1970]

I think that what Dr. Hawking means is, with the current state of technology, we do not have the means to run into other aliens. They will run into us, because it's certainly not up to our technology to search, find and encounter other civilisations. Hence, when there's contact with aliens, we're going to be the primitives and they're going to be explorers who discover us.

That's the Carl Sagan angle. For an alien race to be able to reach us, their technology is way more advanced than ours (doh). And their ability to destroy themselves in the process is also way more advanced. So, for an alien race to have the ability to reach other star systems, they must have weeded out aggression a long time ago or they would have destroyed themselves before they were able to reach the stars.

Personally I tend to go with Sagan. What would be the point for aliens to go to war with a bunch of primitives?

• Resources? They can just take it from the outer planets or other solar systems. Earth is not a unique source of resources, I think
  
• Slaves? As if you need manual labor when you have the technology to travel between stars.
  
• Evil? They'd succumbed to civil war a long time ago

The only reason they'd have to destroy us, is as a pre-emptive strike to prevent us from ruling over them, somewhere in the future.

What about a combined Sagan/Hawking approach? You raise a couple of great points...

At one point in early space exploration history, the thought was that water was rare. We now know it is literally everywhere and in every form all through the universe. There is now speculation that the so called "rare earth metals" may not be so rare outside of Earth. This is one thought driving the current commercial interest in the harvesting/mining of asteroids. I imagine that any advanced space traveling civilization would possess the means to gather the basic elements while on the fly...

I imagine that we would probably see the use of technology in almost every conceivable area of manual work - UNLESS they subscribe to the current theory that some of our enlightened thinkers, again conjuring Stephen Hawking, on the innate fear of technology replacing biology. Ray Kurzweil theorized about the idea of technology actually ruling over us (not to mention being incorporated within our biology) as one of the great next developments of human evolution. He calls it the "great singularity" and he is not the only one that has speculated about this. Some sci-fi writers, such as Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke focused on the idea of humans becoming subservient to technology...

Depends on what their version of "evil" is. For example, I think that anything "Hello Kitty!" is evil...

Just like humans are not enslaving other species for food, work or entertainment?

Darwinism...

[edit] Ah, a mix of both ideas... a "we don't know" as the real answer? [/edit] There are symbioses and other animals that share resources and work together. There are many examples in nature where larger/different (advanced/complex are the wrong words to use) animals that depend on each other and work together. The more intelligent, the more likely for them to check before eating the other animal ("dumb" fish just gobble up anything near them ).

Yes, that's all I've been saying. Stephen Hawking does not have all the answers and there are plenty out there that could be just as viable as his. I hate it when any news or information outlet will focus on speculation from one "expert" who essentially then becomes the standard at the expense of all other probable theories...

[Bill Phil]

I agree those three are no reasons for war with primitives for any alien species. But there is one clear reason they might want to 'remove' the current occupants: Lebensraum.

For an oxygen breathing alien species earth could be a very inviting place to colonize. If you find a nice house to settle in that happens to be infested with rats what do you do? You sweep out the rats.

Except they most likely have the resources to build in space colonies.

If there are rats there, go somewhere else.

Maybe we're a threat, and they want to not kill off the other species on Earth.

[Dispatcher]

Space is big. Aliens might be ... alien. They don't want our water. They might find Saturn or Jupiter far more homelike than Earth. Earth-like worlds might be a low priority to them. As for our world and its life being a colony of an ancient advanced space faring civilization and its life (certainly not closely affiliated to the gas giant crowd); Uplift science fiction on one hand and world religions on the other hand share elements with that concept.

[KerikBalm]

1. What about if us - on earth - are the most technologically advanced? Yes, I know the earth is not that old but what if...? Surely there is room in the scientific community to inquire into this possibility.

Within our galaxy, I favor the idea that we are contenders for the most advanced civilization, as an answer to the fermi paradox.

Someone has to be first, and with 1 million years being a reasonable timeframe to colonie the entire galaxy after development of fusion powered spacecraft, considering the age of the Earth... if there was anyone out there (in our galaxy) more advanced... our area should have been colonized before the cambrian explosion.

2. What if we are actually the descendants of a space-faring species, much like is written in Issac Asimov's Foundation series? What if human life did begin on another world, much like the prelude on the original Battlestar Galactica series from 1979... If this is the case, then it is possible that the advanced life out there would not see us as a species to be conquered, but as a colony to be refined to its fullest potential. The question would then become "what is our true purpose."

Fossils and molecular biology say no.

3. Hawking places the teachings of Charles Darwin in the driver's seat; the idea that a superior organism would use its abilities to conquer lesser organisms is a part of the natural world BUT... any advanced organism would have similar traits of curiosity, compassion, etc. Not all would be ALIEN-like predators or bent on the enslavement of humanity.

Well, I have a different view... life which propagates the most will become the most common. We will meet those that want to expand, and not meet those that don't.

However, evolution has many cases of symbiosis. The aliens could use us to their advantage without actually attacking us.

Earth shouldn't be that interesting to them for colonization.

Its a huge biohazard, an interesting place to study, and its got a ~9km/sec dV requirement to lift things from orbit. And its atmosphere presents huge design constraints.

What if they come and want to strip mine Ceres/Vesta/ 16 psyche.... there's a lot of resources for the taking with small gravity wells and no biohazard.

If they have high Isp and high thrust drives taht make the 9km/sec to lift off from earth easy.... and they want such huge quantities of material that asteroids + mars + gas giant moons aren't enough... then doesn't Earth look less desirable than nepture/Uranus/Saturn, even Jupiter if mass is really what they want?

Why should they *care* about Earth (from a military or economic point of view).

What Earth does have, is rather large manufacturing capabilities that may dwarf those of an alien expedition.

I'd like to see a Sci-Fi story where aliens come, and lay claim to mars, the asteroids, jovian moons, etc... then because its a colony ship with limited manufacturing capability, they open relations with earth... they give us technology, but we have to build stuff for them.

Slowly, they exploit us through trade, much like european powers did in past centuries.

Humanity is given cheap clean power... regular access to space, high speed transit, etc... but our future is bleak and hopeless... the aliens have claimed everything in our solar system except Earth and the moon, despite the advanced technology... we have nothing to invent, the aliens have patented everything (and manipulated the system, signed treaties where they retain the IP forever, not 20 years)- they merely liscence us the rights to use the technology... in fact the contract stipulates that they actually own everything built with their technology, and we're just allowed to use it.

Then they use their amassed wealth to control the money supply, they get paid interest in addition to liscencing fees.

They soon influence events on Earth as the 0.01% do today... and if anyone questions the fairness of it, they call us stupid humans, cite the massive research and development costs that the alien civilization paid for to develop the technology, and then say they are not just "job creators" but "world savers", as most civilizations like ours (so they may claim) collapse due to nuclear warfare or environmental destruction - their fusion power plant technology saved us from global warming, and the aliens actively guard us from asteroid impacts. etc...

They control the highest levels of government, without a shot being fired, or setting foot on our planet.

We have nowhere to go, because the aliens have spread all around us - and we helped speed their spread by diverting Earth's industrial output towards their expansion in return for their technology).

The aliens monitor us, and would KEW us if we started a militarization program to try and expand.

Maybe they are nice enough to find us a new planet if something happens to ours(like the sun expands to a red giant).... but if we cause it ourselves, they'll probably leave us to die.

Edited July 31, 2015 by KerikBalm

[kiwi1960]

Lets face it.... ANYTHING, even a microbe "out there" may not be more intelligent than us, but they really must be smarter.

If you think of this world as the Galaxy, then just look at what we have done to it... killed off other species, killed each other, polluted this planet to hell and back... and created Global warming....

If you were an Alien species... and you were technologically advanced AND smarter.... and you found this upstart little Planet that is so arrogant it thinks its alone in the Universe.... would you announce yourselves? Hell NO.... you'd hide. You'd hide and work out how to deal with us, wait till be killed ourselves off or wait till we evolved to being smarter..... and wiser...

Hawking was right.... we have only just now come out of our baby cot if you think about it...

It was only a generation ago that we developed Nuclear energy... 50 years since we landed on the Moon... hell, 60 years ago we wondered if there was life on Mars....

....and we're still looking...

and only just now... took photos of Pluto...

And you wonder if **WE** will discover alien life and get the first shots in?

Without a doubt... if aliens know about us then it follows they are WAY more advanced than we are and have known about us for a long time...

Since they have not attacked or announced themselves... then yes, they are ignoring us.

Do you blame them?