Would we colonize a planet already inhabited?

[KOCOUR]

Should we leave an precious habitable planet because of primitive Alien life?

hell no! You know how hard it is to find habitable planet?

PURGE THE ALIEN! KILL THE MUTANT! BURN THE HERETIC!

[Mekan1k]

If we find a planet with life, ANY LIFE, we should spread to it. Ideally we would make the planet more suitable for ourselves, but if we find something that we observe at intelligent life, we should try not to interfere with their development, instead, we should work on observing them and keeping them from dying.

Well, either that or we should destroy them immediately, as they might become a threat, but I doubt most people would accept Pac-esq reasoning.

[lajoswinkler]

I would have no objections to "use" a planet inhabited by species even in the range of today's chimps and gorillas, but if there are highly intelligent species similar to early humans, my opinion is to leave them alone unless they're greatly suffering.

They're sentient and their planet is their heritage, their birth given right, just like Earth belongs to humans.

[magnemoe]

I think that would be the hard way of doing it. Terraforming could take thousands of years, but human habitat design can be adapted to the local climate immediately. Look at what we do here, when we go live in antarctica, we don't terraform it, we just build a well-insulated base with a reliable power supply and create a reasonable environment inside it.

Whether we decide to inhabit the surface of an exoplanet, assuming we get a generation ship in orbit around the place, depends on how easy it is to build habitats there, vs just taking the water and minerals from the surface and expanding our ship in orbit.

True, teraforming takes forever, we will probably seed planets in the habitable zone without life but not wait.

Add that planets with life is the most interesting places to visit. Try to get funding for an manned interstellar mission to an bunch of boring planets without life

Yes the planet will be contaminated by microorganisms from earth, pretty much impossible to avoid. An manned mission to Mars will make it hard to say if Mars has lift, at least it will have life after we left.

Now an planet with an advanced ecosystem will probably not have any niches for the eartlife to take over easy. An primitive ecosystem like earth an billion years ago would likely to be taken over by earth life.

Probes will show how different the alien biochemistry is from our own.

As for colonization, the difference between colonization and research is blurred, at least if we talk about slower then light travel, you will stay an long time probably the rest of your life.

[falofonos]

Any life bearing worlds have the potential to produce an intelligent species eventually, Ours did.

Those capable of supporting technological societies would unfortunately be the ones we found most attractive. On the bright side : Without some form of FTL, we're not going to colonize anywhere soon.

I'd recommend David Brin's Existence for a glance at a possible first encounter scenario.

[magnemoe]

I would have no objections to "use" a planet inhabited by species even in the range of today's chimps and gorillas, but if there are highly intelligent species similar to early humans, my opinion is to leave them alone unless they're greatly suffering.

They're sentient and their planet is their heritage, their birth given right, just like Earth belongs to humans.

They will be suffering as in they don't have modern medicine, high chance for lots of social injustice like slavery and plenty of brutal rulers if they are anything like humans and at past the hunter gatherer stage but not industrialized.

If they are hunter gatherers its an high chance of not finding them until you land at least with rovers and uav.

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/177/5/4/first_contact_5_by_olsen1a-d54w8yu.jpg

For the human impact, average for the hunter gatherers we didn't find before landing the impact is negative. The Inuits are probably the best example of this as the contact was peaceful but still was bad for them.

An more advanced society between ancient and medieval and the contact will be far more beneficial to them.

As for exploiting the aliens, that would be very hard as it require lots of contact, the human population would be very small and unless the aliens have very low intelligence they will lose their ave of humans, absorb a lot of technology and it would be expensive wars.

If we find a planet with life, ANY LIFE, we should spread to it. Ideally we would make the planet more suitable for ourselves, but if we find something that we observe at intelligent life, we should try not to interfere with their development, instead, we should work on observing them and keeping them from dying.

Well, either that or we should destroy them immediately, as they might become a threat, but I doubt most people would accept Pac-esq reasoning.

More likely we find some aggressive cat like aliens use them as cheap labor while teaching them a lot

[lajoswinkler]

True, but by suffering I meant going towards extinction. Imagine if a population catches a virus and they're dying like flies one by one.

As for the social issues, I'd have to think twice if it's something on the order of Hitler, Stalin and other assholes.

Problem with interfering is the possibility of becoming a deity, as it was proven during human history. Stupid people often saw technologically advanced humans as gods and it did their society no good. So once you interfere, you have to stay there at least for a while, and then you risk either being murdered or glorified. I don't see a case where indigenous people would be smart enough to consider outsiders "from the heavens" as benign, but powerful advisors. Jelaousy would develop shortly.

And then when you leave, it would not take long until cargo cults appear.

The minute you make the first contact with inferior society, you're kind of obliged to nurture them, which inevitably destroys their culture. Prime directive is a tough cookie.

[baracksimposter]

I don't blame them for not contacting us.

Yea we are not the type of species that you would want in a galactic society

[KOCOUR]

Yea we are not the type of species that you would want in a galactic society

Dumbest thing i can possibly hear, yet i hear it a lot.

[running]

In our past, whenever we discovered an island or continent, if it was worth the effort we'd colonized it.

In our present we still do, although we don't find that many places worth while anymore. Whenever we do we go for it.

Pick any spot on the planet you like and image there is gold or oil in the ground. There will be plans on how to get it out the same day.

You might debate it all you want on a forum for a computer game. But if there is a planet of which it is worthwhile to colonize, we will. The question worthwhile will take into account a hostile environment including wild life, diseases or armed natives. Sure there might be people that don't like it. But there will be countries and coorporations that will do it.

Personllay, if there are sentient beings, I'd prefer to setup trade and create a win win situation.

But in reality it will start out like that en then there will be incidents and then there will be a war. A war we supposedly didn't want, but they forced it on us.

[lajoswinkler]

Exactly. We will provoke a war and then we'll say it's not our fault and then it will be genocide because reasons. It's the same disgusting thing that's happening every year on Earth. There is always a motive for one side, so it just waits and provokes until the other side throws a rock and then...

[magnemoe]

In our past, whenever we discovered an island or continent, if it was worth the effort we'd colonized it.

In our present we still do, although we don't find that many places worth while anymore. Whenever we do we go for it.

Pick any spot on the planet you like and image there is gold or oil in the ground. There will be plans on how to get it out the same day.

You might debate it all you want on a forum for a computer game. But if there is a planet of which it is worthwhile to colonize, we will. The question worthwhile will take into account a hostile environment including wild life, diseases or armed natives. Sure there might be people that don't like it. But there will be countries and coorporations that will do it.

Personllay, if there are sentient beings, I'd prefer to setup trade and create a win win situation.

But in reality it will start out like that en then there will be incidents and then there will be a war. A war we supposedly didn't want, but they forced it on us.

Why should it be incidents who end in a war?

It pretty rare, and no being more alien does not increase chance for conflict.

[magnemoe]

Exactly. We will provoke a war and then we'll say it's not our fault and then it will be genocide because reasons. It's the same disgusting thing that's happening every year on Earth. There is always a motive for one side, so it just waits and provokes until the other side throws a rock and then...

Yes stuff like that happens but not by anybody who has a space program, yes that includes China.

[running]

Why should it be incidents who end in a war?

Because we need to get at the resources and they are in the way. Even if we don't create the incidents, with different cultures there will be issues. With the right kind of spinning the issues, things will escalate untill there is war. Humans have always done that and are still doing that.

[lajoswinkler]

Yes stuff like that happens but not by anybody who has a space program, yes that includes China.

Yes. Vietnam, Middle East, Chechnya, Tibet and many other, that was all Liechtenstein's fault.

Those bastardly Liechtensteinians and their lack of space program!

[running]

Yes stuff like that happens but not by anybody who has a space program, yes that includes China.

Is there a requirement in the tech tree that you have to develop certain moral values before you can unlock the space program?

Who started with rockets that went really high? What beeps from space caused the Americans to suddenly started working very hard on their space program? Was that really to explore or to keep up with the enemy? Why are countries as North Korea so interested in a space program?

Edited September 26, 2013 by running
grammar

[magnemoe]

Is there a requirement in the tech tree that you have to develop certain moral values before you can unlock the space program?

Who started with rockets that went really high? What beeps from space caused the Americans to suddenly started working very hard on their space program? Was that really to explore or to keep up with the enemy? Why are countries as North Korea so interested in a space program?

You are right is no moral requirements, however it require some degree of functionality and rationality of the country.

Less today than 50 years ago as technology has spread.

[magnemoe]

Yes. Vietnam, Middle East, Chechnya, Tibet and many other, that was all Liechtenstein's fault.

Those bastardly Liechtensteinians and their lack of space program!

Yes war happens, however you don't go to war to take resources. Last time it happened was then Iraq invaded Kuwait however they claim its an contested area.

No resources in Vietnam, Chechnya or Tibet at least nothing who came close to the cost of the war.

Oil in the middle east but none of the wars except the two Saddam started was done to capture resources. yes golf war one was done to secure the supply of oil, this was also an supporting factor in golf war 2 and the war against Libya but not the main reasons.

Resources had no importance in all the wars against Israel, the civil war in Yemen and now Syria.

In short resources has been use to explain the reasons for most wars and its not the reason. Ideology, national pride (or other groups pride), revenge and to provide security are the driving motivation.

Take the Falkland isles as an example, lots of talk about resources, yes its some fishing, it might be oil but nobody has bothered looking 30 years later the island cost England money.

Previously resources was more important, it might be the primary reason for Japan move southward during WW2, however this was also security as Japan was boycotted. Was an primary driver for the early colonization, the later one was mostly to take the area before the others.

[running]

Ok not all wars are resources based (although I don't agree with all your examples). Some are ideology based. I'm sure we can find ideological differences with an alien life form.

But that only makes things worse... not only will we colonize if it's worth the effort, we might even do it just because we can or to fight the locals.

[silent_gnomore]

More cost effective: than terraforming barren worlds, asteroid mining/other resource faucets; required for medicine production/other research, expansion of economy

Safe for indigenous life: in terms of pathogens and required alterations to the environment

Necessary to prevent our extinction: If we don't, then every human being dies

_________________________________More Cost Effective___________________Safe for Indigenous Life_______________Necessary to prevent our extinction

We have to prevent our extinction___________Yes__________________________________Yes ____________________________________Yes

Safe to indigenous life_____________________Yes__________________________________Maybe__________________________________Yes

More cost effective _____________________Maybe __________________________________Yes___________________________________Yes

7/9 chances, we do colonize, and in the remaining two it's a 50/50 chance. So, 8/9 probability, yes, we colonize. This assumes that if it's not required to prevent our extinction and it would not be cost effective or would destroy the indigenous life, then we would not colonize. I don't think we'll be totally devoid of ethics if we develop that far, and we certainly won't be stupid or careless.

This also assumes that since we have nearly developed gene therapy already, then so long as the life is carbon-based, their immune systems can be used to augment our own. In fact, their capacity to deploy agents of biological warfare while rapidly immunizing their population would be their only defense. This matrix does not apply to worlds harboring non-carbon life, as such worlds would likely be unsuitable for human habitation.

Before you feel too much like we're bad guys, consider that this matrix is equally valid for any space-faring species that may exist out there. If they find us, then we will be hosts.

Finally, do this thought experiment: On this world, right now, it comes to light that either every single person in a small, underdeveloped nation dies or everybody else in the world dies. We may not like the answer, but we know what would happen.

edits: Shortened. The matrix is enough. Also, got the matrix to somewhat line up.

Edited September 26, 2013 by silent_gnomore

[Winter Man]

Yes war happens, however you don't go to war to take resources. Last time it happened was then Iraq invaded Kuwait however they claim its an contested area.

No resources in Vietnam, Chechnya or Tibet at least nothing who came close to the cost of the war.

(cut short to save space)

You're forgetting that land is very much a resource. The ongoing conflict in Israel is primarily land-related (half the living Palestinians being forced off theirs, half the living Israelis now having lived there their whole lives). Include land as a resource and an awful lot more wars become resource-related.

[magnemoe]

You're forgetting that land is very much a resource. The ongoing conflict in Israel is primarily land-related (half the living Palestinians being forced off theirs, half the living Israelis now having lived there their whole lives). Include land as a resource and an awful lot more wars become resource-related.

Yes land is an important resource. however its not an common reason for fights between countries anymore. Yes most fights involves control of the ground but take the Palestinians, if they was after just land for housing and farming any suitable place would work. Well they once controlled Lebanon. They could have kept it and increased their control and nobody would bothered. However they started to use it as an base to attack Israel with the result that Israel invaded Lebanon and chased away PLO, so the reason was revenge and national pride.

Note that on on an lower level, tribal warfare to bandits and street gangs, resources like land and loot is still important reasons to fight.

Soviet Union gathered an very impressive empire of client states before going down. However her the reasons was ideology and to some degree security. The client states cost a lot of money, yes huge part of the reason is that communism don't work well but you don't gather an giant empire for profit if it bleed you dry all the time over 50 years.

The US response was pretty much the same use a lot of money to support countries.

[notfruit]

NUKE THE ALIENS!

But seriously. We would pwn the crap out of them (unless it plays out like an alien invasion movie and they discover our weakness is radiation or the atmosphere or something). That, or they pwn us before we get there in a star-wars style battle in space. It's totally fair from our point of view!

[Payload]

Would we colonize a planet already inhabited?

As I sit here in Pensacola, Florida, something tells me the answer is 100% yes.

[brooksy125]

It's alright saying oh we shouldn't but everyone here knows we will, we always have and probably always will continue to do so.