Two neighboring stars develop intelligent life. (discussion)

[Deadpangod3]

I don't think an interstellar craft is totally infeasable. Mobilizing the industry of the entire Earth could produce an Orion-powered O'Neil cylinder in a century or two, and a much smaller craft would require much less. You also have to consider what state the human race will be in a few centuries down the line. Technology will, of course, be far ahead of ours, and Humanity would potentially call upon the resources of multiple planets, and many moons and asteroids. To that era, an interstellar ship will be comparable to a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, expensive, but far from impossible.

On the subject of not making contact with any extraterrestrials, I remember a short story I once read, where Sol is inside a region of the Galaxy, covering roughly 3% of the Galaxy by volume, called by outsiders "the Veil of Madness". Any sapient race that evolves inside the Veil is totally insane, and quickly annihilates itself. Except for humanity. Not that we're immune to the Veil, we are still crazy, just not debilitatingly so. That's why we expand into interstellar space and find nobody, becuase they always kill themselves before we find them. We reach the edge of the Veil, not knowing that it even exists, and why we keep finding alien rubble, and we run into living, functional, totally sane aliens. And they're TERRIFIED of us, because we just popped out of the Veil that drives everyone crazy, and we're the biggest power in the galaxy (everyone else had to contend with each other, while we were left unmatched in the Veil).

After failing to convince the Aliens we're not insane, we decide to just play the part of the crazy monsters, unwittingly playing the biggest practical joke in the history of the Universe.

Not that this is a serious explanation or anything, it was a funny story and seemed to fit in to the thread.

Is there any way I'd be able to read this story?

[andrewas]

http://creepypasta.wikia.com/wiki/Mankind

[magnemoe]

Just thought I would add" But only if someone saw you do it" Space is sort of large and if a planet goes POP for no reason, there is no guarantee that someone else was watching at the exact moment that it met its doom, barring being able to travel at FTL speed to see it happen again and analyse it

But if you are the kind of civilisation that would do it, then you would probably take the shot and hope no one saw it

Notice I said planet NOT sun, Solar explosions WILL generate a fair amount of interest given how our own astronomers react to any change in their work area

We have telescopes today who scan the sky 24/7 to look for anything unusual, an far more advanced civilization will probably have much more of this.

On the other hand I'm not sure how large bang you need to wipe out all higher life, probably not so many magnitudes larger than the dinosaur killer, this will probably not be so easy to detect.

But its signature will probably be different from 100 km asteroid, this can probably be identified in an good telescope for an long time.

The use of relativistic kill missiles has some downsides. The most obvious one is if you hit an base or colony and not the home world.

However even if not you have an timeframe, first use of high powered radio, until an self supplied asteroid civilization, once the target reach that level destroying their home planet will just **** them off seriously and you better expect counter fire, you will have serious issues targeting small space stations and bases.

[Nikolai]

But you're leaving out the 'why.' Every genocide that we as a species have perpetrated has one thing in common; proximity. We've never marched across a continent to kill someone arbitrarily, much less star systems.

That's because no single power has yet been in a primitive state, but possessed the foreseeable capability to wipe out your entire species, if and when we simply let them develop the technology to do so.

If you get to a point where you can command the energies required for interstellar travel, you can (a) wipe a planet clean with undetectable missiles, and ( hide in any of the innumerable nooks and crannies of the Universe. You're also likely to be rather aggressive; if predation is a common evolutionary trait, it's not very likely for a species to rise to dominance on a planet by being nice. And you know this about every new intelligent species you encounter.

So you're not just talking about preserving your civilization, your way of life, your government, or your family; you're talking about preserving your entire race. There doesn't seem to be any evidence for the notion that becoming starfaring automatically makes a race peaceful. And if you don't finish the job while you can, you run the risk of someone escaping and holding a grudge. (And note that there doesn't even need to be any marching anywhere. Just launch the relativistic missiles and forget about it.)

That's why.

Now, I'd much prefer that everyone play nice. I loathe war and killing and all that stuff, and wish it would all just stop, now and forever. But I'm not so arrogant as to think that if these thoughts occur to me, they can't possibly occur to any other species. Heck, they've probably occurred to other members of my own species. Would you want to chance that it would never occur to the relatively primitive intelligent, somewhat aggressive species you've just learned about?

[NASAFanboy]

But you're leaving out the 'why.' Every genocide that we as a species have perpetrated has one thing in common; proximity. We've never marched across a continent to kill someone arbitrarily, much less star systems.

I mean, the nearest equivalent I can think of would be if Europeans found Native American poetry float in across the ocean, and their first thought was to build and send two massive warships with the express purpose of annihilating whatever they found.

Why would they?

Because they'd see us as an potiental threat to their species. They'd see us as unruly upstarts, and with our violent tendencies, see us as xenophobic and violent from our TV tranmissions. If I was an alien emperor, and I was confronted with this issue, I would wipe them out fast before the develop interstellar travel.

Their projectiles could home in on our radio transmissions and smack into out colony worlds. Hit Earth and our offworld colonies in an preemptivive strike, and mate send heavily arms warships to finish the job. Humanity would be helpless, and would be out of action for centuries until they can strike back.

[Stargate525]

and ( hide in any of the innumerable nooks and crannies of the Universe...

...And if you don't finish the job while you can, you run the risk of someone escaping and holding a grudge.

These seem mutually incompatible. If it is as easy to hide in space as you say (and I'm not disagreeing with you), then you can NEVER know if you've finished the job.

You meet a guy in an alley. You have a gun drawn. He may or may not. You may or may not kill him before he fires back. The best way to stay alive is to simply NOT SHOOT HIM.

Alternate scenario. You meet a guy in an alley. You have a gun drawn. You've seen him, so you know he's unarmed. Still, you may or may not kill him before he acquires a gun as well. Best way to stay alive is still to NOT SHOOT HIM.

This is the nuclear arms argument all over again. You have NO WAY of knowing, for sure, that your enemy cannot get off a retaliatory strike before you hit all of their assets. It's a mutually-assured destruction. The only winning move is not to play.

[guto8797]

First place: unless really close, due to radiation dissipating, no living species would "hear" us, just background noise.

Second: As much as all living creatures have natural xenophobia and aggression, as basic survival methods, the more evolved they get, the better they get at reprising that natural capability. We don't murder our neighbours when we run put of food, we developed ways to repress that instinct. Advanced alien life forms would be no different.

Third: Think from their point of view. Even if they did scan us and come to the conclusion that we are technologically inferior and they could wipe us, wouldn't someone get a little paranoid about "secret arsenals"? Any civilization advanced enough fears to attack each other due to mutual destruction. We wouldn't nuke aliens on fear of them striking back and same for them.

Lastly i do not believe we are ready for meeting other life-forms. We barely live at peace with eachother, we must sort out these problems before that

[Ralathon]

Second: As much as all living creatures have natural xenophobia and aggression, as basic survival methods, the more evolved they get, the better they get at reprising that natural capability. We don't murder our neighbours when we run put of food, we developed ways to repress that instinct. Advanced alien life forms would be no different.

Why wouldn't advanced alien civilizations be different? You are making an assumption here based on 1 data point; Ourselves. Humans evolved in small tribes, so we have an inherent tendency towards social behavior. Alien civilizations that evolved from solitary hunters would have a completely different mentality. And even if an alien civilization is completely pacifistic among themselves, that says absolutely nothing about their treatment of other species.

In the end it is a very dangerous gambit. If we expose our civilization to some alien civilization and we're wrong it's game over for us. When the survival of humanity is on the line a little caution is warranted.

Third: Think from their point of view. Even if they did scan us and come to the conclusion that we are technologically inferior and they could wipe us, wouldn't someone get a little paranoid about "secret arsenals"? Any civilization advanced enough fears to attack each other due to mutual destruction. We wouldn't nuke aliens on fear of them striking back and same for them.

As shown in "The Killing Star", assuming you know nothing about aliens you can only say 3 things about their behavior:

1) They'll place their own survival above ours. Species don't thrive by being sacrificial.

2) They'll be intelligent, alert, aggressive and ruthless if needed. The only evolutionary advantage behind intelligence is cunning, so successful civilizations will have these traits in spades.

3) They'll assume that the above 2 points apply to us.

Combine this with interstellar travelling capability. Any craft capable of interstellar travel needs to reach some ridiculous speeds. At 90% of the speed of light a 1kg bag of sugar has a kinetic energy equivalent to the Tsar Bomba. A small spacecraft would be equivalent to the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. Therefore you have no way to determine if the approaching ship is a relativistic kill vehicle or a peaceful envoy until it is too late, the only difference between the 2 is intent. Since these ships move so fast you can't really detect their launch either. By the time you see the launch the ship has already traveled 90% of the distance and is practically upon you. This circumvents the MAD principle due to the ridiculously short response time. It's like giving the US teleporting nukes during the cold war. By the time the Soviets notice the teleports it would be too late, disabling the retaliation strike.

The Killing Star sums up the situation pretty well:

Imagine you're taking a walk in a large park, late at night. It'd be nice to meet someone friendly, but you know this place is dangerous at night: that's when the murderers come out. It is hard 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 might hear a distant shriek or blunder across a corpse.

How do you survive the night?

The last thing you want to do is shout "I'M HERE!"...

The next to last thing is reply to someone shouting "I'M A FRIEND!"...

What you'd like to do is find a policeman, or get out of the park. But you don't want to make a noise or move to a light where you might be spotted. It is difficult to do either 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 the park and the universe:

There is no policeman.

There is no way out.

And the night never ends...

[NASAFanboy]

Second: As much as all living creatures have natural xenophobia and aggression, as basic survival methods, the more evolved they get, the better they get at reprising that natural capability. We don't murder our neighbours when we run put of food, we developed ways to repress that instinct. Advanced alien life forms would be no different.

Your second point is invalid.

Sure, we'll start to be peaceful to our own species, but we are in no way better in treating other species. Lets see how many animals have gone extinct due to human intervention (Its a very long list.). Also, I believe you have mixed up xenophobism with racism. Humans have only started to massively shed our racist tendencies in the past few years, and that was basicallly us attacking members of our own species just because they didn't have a certain skin color or didn't speak a certain language. We've only started to become more and more tolerant of other races (And sadly, many people still are racist), and we've gone to the Moon, built spacestations, and are gearing up to head to Mars (Long story short, we're still an discriminating species even though we've developed the most basics of spaceflight). Xenophobism is like racism, but its directed at another species, not a member of your on species with an different eye color or skin color. And considering that some believe we can have interstellar travel in the mid-22nd century, humanity may still depart to the stars with discrimination in their minds. An interstellar species does not mean it is more civilized, and it does not mean they are not discriminating. In the 1960's United States, there was more discrimination against blacks than there was in an poor Eastern European nation with backwards technology. More technology advanced does NOT equal more morally advanced.\

@Rath.

You read the Killing Star?

Holy mother of fraking Kerbal! That's my favorite novel!

[Camacha]

Three missiles heading toward us at 90% of the speed of light would wipe the Earth clean, without arousing suspicion from another alien race and without us ever detecting us in time to stop it (Not like we could, anyways).

There is an almost infinitly bigger chance some guy will jump through your windows and kills you. I assume you have no windows in your house?

Like I said, this level of fear and paranoia never helped anyone.

Why would they?

Because they'd see us as an potiental threat to their species. They'd see us as unruly upstarts, and with our violent tendencies, see us as xenophobic and violent from our TV tranmissions. If I was an alien emperor, and I was confronted with this issue, I would wipe them out fast before the develop interstellar travel.

If you can wipe out a species/world like that, you are a lot more advanced and have nothing to fear. Really, this kind of thinking is imperialist and outdated at best.

[Camacha]

More technology advanced does NOT equal more morally advanced.

Yes it does, typically. Because of the increased killing capacity, society and individuals need to be more balanced. Otherwise someone could do a lot of damage. With only a spear you could kill a few people, with an atomic arsenal you can wipe out the world. So yes, a calm spirit goes hand in hand with technological advances in weaponry - it simple has to.

[Camacha]

Combine this with interstellar travelling capability. Any craft capable of interstellar travel needs to reach some ridiculous speeds. At 90% of the speed of light a 1kg bag of sugar has a kinetic energy equivalent to the Tsar Bomba. A small spacecraft would be equivalent to the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. Therefore you have no way to determine if the approaching ship is a relativistic kill vehicle or a peaceful envoy until it is too late, the only difference between the 2 is intent. Since these ships move so fast you can't really detect their launch either. By the time you see the launch the ship has already traveled 90% of the distance and is practically upon you. This circumvents the MAD principle due to the ridiculously short response time. It's like giving the US teleporting nukes during the cold war. By the time the Soviets notice the teleports it would be too late, disabling the retaliation strike.

Nope, it does not work that way, simply because no one can be sure you do not have an ace up your sleeve. Who's to say we have got some secret cruiser with weapons stashed in the Oort cloud? You don't, so you are not going to take a chance by shooting up someones planet.

The only winning move is not to play is valid.

[nhnifong]

Honestly I don't see why there would be any point in physically fighting with a civilization that we cannot actually reach. We can only talk to them. Nor would there be any reason to keep secrets from them. I imaging the two societies would communicate constantly and that this would cause them to converge to similar cultures and levels of technology. Even if they later develop the power physically cross the gap between them, they will have been communicating for hundreds of years and may not have any interest in fighting at that point.

[NASAFanboy]

Yes it does, typically. Because of the increased killing capacity, society and individuals need to be more balanced. Otherwise someone could do a lot of damage. With only a spear you could kill a few people, with an atomic arsenal you can wipe out the world. So yes, a calm spirit goes hand in hand with technological advances in weaponry - it simple has to.

Ah yes, but you factored out conventional weaponary.

The USAF has plans to put a KillSAT into orbit sometime (Seriously, I have no freaking clue why, a ICBM could do better), and DARPA is actively developing laser weapons and heat rays (Oh, yes, and this invisible forcefield thingy to protect vehicles from RPGs, not kidding). The United States is also funding development of guided bullets and an optical targeting system for the F-35, along with an naval railgun able of hitting targets a hundred miles away that will be deployed upon US naval vessels as soon as 2016.

We've stopped building nukes, all right, but our weapons grow deadlier by the day. Noones protesting the railgun tests and deployment, are they? Noones protesting the F-35 because "it'll kill people" are they? Noone is protesting laser weapons, and noone is protesting force fields because "it'll kill people and do the world no good".

The plain truth is that we humans advance because we need a bigger stick. War motivates us. War is in our blood, in our DNA, in the way we think - and we aren't even that bad. We're social animals, after all, and we try our best to uphold peace, even though we will not suceed in the end.

And alien race which evolved as an solitary hunter animal could be far more xenophobic and warlike than us. And remember, we've only had 11 years of peace around the entire world without a war going on anywhere from....1000-2000AD. And we still got the Afghanistan wars, proxy wars, war, war, war. Humans are born warriors, but there could be an more warlike race than us out there. And we wouldn't find out until too late.

An alien projectile could home in on our radio transmissions, then send in ships to finish us off.

While I'm certain the human race could possibly survive such an disaster, I sa that now is NOT a good time for us to be broadcasting our messages to space. We shouldn't be running around a crowd of potinetal murders in the dark screaming "I'M HERE" and wearing glow-in-the-dark clothes. That's not a good plan, and it never was. And with projectiles smashing into us at 90% of the speed of light, we will never know what hit us, and we could never trace where it came from. They'll get off, scott-free, and maybe, when we recover to be an interstellar species, there will be an awkward moment on the Galantic Council whenever we mention the destruction of our homeworld.

Hold off on SETI a little, and have them listen. I'm not saying we shouldn't broadcast, I'm just saying that we should atleast be an two-planet species first.

[Ralathon]

There is an almost infinitly bigger chance some guy will jump through your windows and kills you. I assume you have no windows in your house?

Like I said, this level of fear and paranoia never helped anyone.

Getting killed by a guy jumping through my window does not result in the extinction of humanity. When we are playing with our continued existence caution is warranted.

If you can wipe out a species/world like that, you are a lot more advanced and have nothing to fear. Really, this kind of thinking is imperialist and outdated at best.

The problem comes when that inferior species starts to dabble in interstellar travel and gains the ability to seriously harm you. You want to start a preemptive strike before they reach that point. We see the same in current politics: The USA invaded Iraq because they thought it was working on weapons of mass destruction and North Korea working on nukes had half the world threatening sanctions or worse.

Yes it does, typically. Because of the increased killing capacity, society and individuals need to be more balanced. Otherwise someone could do a lot of damage. With only a spear you could kill a few people, with an atomic arsenal you can wipe out the world. So yes, a calm spirit goes hand in hand with technological advances in weaponry - it simple has to.

Yes indeed. A calm spirit against your own species. But how they treat their species is completely irrelevant, what matters is how they treat others.

Nope, it does not work that way, simply because no one can be sure you do not have an ace up your sleeve. Who's to say we have got some secret cruiser with weapons stashed in the Oort cloud? You don't, so you are not going to take a chance by shooting up someones planet.

The only winning move is not to play is valid.

That's why you start out with a relativistic bombardment and then put a few automated probes (or a whole fleet) in the system that monitor the place. Charging up a relativistic projectile is pretty noticeable on these distances and you'll have plenty of time to take it out before it becomes a threat.

@Rath.

You read the Killing Star?

Holy mother of fraking Kerbal! That's my favorite novel!

Yes I did. I was watching this followup to a review by SF Debris which mentioned it, that's how I found it.

[Stargate525]

This circumvents the MAD principle due to the ridiculously short response time. It's like giving the US teleporting nukes during the cold war. By the time the Soviets notice the teleports it would be too late, disabling the retaliation strike.

Nope. Give the US teleporting nukes, and we still would not have used them. Because no matter how many nukes we had, we could not GUARANTEE taking out every opposing bunker, every weapon. If you miss even one base, one viable bastion of your enemy...

I will see your sci-fi and raise you this:

http://creepypasta.wikia.com/wiki/We_Know_You_Are_Out_There

That's why you start out with a relativistic bombardment and then put a few automated probes (or a whole fleet) in the system that monitor the place. Charging up a relativistic projectile is pretty noticeable on these distances and you'll have plenty of time to take it out before it becomes a threat.

So now you're talking a pre-emptive orbital bombardment, followed by a permanent monitoring of the system? This is paranoia. Total and complete paranoia. It is so much EASIER to send a message and determine intent than... this.

As far as I can tell your argument boils down to 'we need to kill them first because they might kill us' and your only answer to 'why would they kill us' is 'because they might.' By that logic, the Secret Service should gun down anyone who gets within fifty feet of the president because they might be an assassin. After all, we are talking about the leader of the free world.

[Camacha]

Getting killed by a guy jumping through my window does not result in the extinction of humanity. When we are playing with our continued existence caution is warranted.

Again, we are a much larger threat to ourselves than anyone else can or probably ever will be. And whether it is just you or everyone else dying, your personal result is the same.

The problem comes when that inferior species starts to dabble in interstellar travel and gains the ability to seriously harm you. You want to start a preemptive strike before they reach that point. We see the same in current politics: The USA invaded Iraq because they thought it was working on weapons of mass destruction and North Korea working on nukes had half the world threatening sanctions or worse.

You seem to miss that those countries actually have a past with the US. There is no reason for a new foreign entity to distrust us. There are more countries than the US that have nukes and most are not perceived as problematic. That has a reason.

That's why you start out with a relativistic bombardment and then put a few automated probes (or a whole fleet) in the system that monitor the place. Charging up a relativistic projectile is pretty noticeable on these distances and you'll have plenty of time to take it out before it becomes a threat.

What guarantee do they have that we cannot do the same? None. You keep on presenting the same argument, but it does not become any more true by repetition. Wiping out someone is always a risk - you need to be damned sure they are and will remain totally harmless after your attack. Within the time such a weapon reaches earth we might have spread across the inner solar system, leaving enough survivors.

I have said before that humans are just too stubborn to die out on a whim. We might go, but we will not go easy.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Camacha

[Ralathon]

Nope. Give the US teleporting nukes, and we still would not have used them. Because no matter how many nukes we had, we could not GUARANTEE taking out every opposing bunker, every weapon. If you miss even one base, one viable bastion of your enemy...

Then you lose a few cities. Maybe not even that if you scramble their guidance with EMP bursts.

Not saying the US would instantly nuke russia given teleportation, but you need to realize just how close we came to nuclear war throughout the cold war. Computer errors, bears breaking into premises, falsely interpreted training exercises. All these things nearly brought us over the edge multiple times. When you can teleport nukes into enemy bases the threshold to push the button becomes a lot lower and it would happen sooner or later.

So now you're talking a pre-emptive orbital bombardment, followed by a permanent monitoring of the system? This is paranoia. Total and complete paranoia. It is so much EASIER to send a message and determine intent than... this.

As far as I can tell your argument boils down to 'we need to kill them first because they might kill us' and your only answer to 'why would they kill us' is 'because they might.' By that logic, the Secret Service should gun down anyone who gets within fifty feet of the president because they might be an assassin. After all, we are talking about the leader of the free world.

Who says they'll answer your message? Maybe you send a message and the first thing you see 40 years later is a flash of antimatter engines, shortly followed by a chunk of steel wiping out humanity. I'm not saying we should be the aggressors here, what I'm saying is that we should lay low until we have interstellar capability ourselves. This means not replying to messages send to us and not sending messages of our own.

Again, we are a much larger threat to ourselves than anyone else can or probably ever will be. And whether it is just you or everyone else dying, your personal result is the same.

Oh I'm not denying that. Humanity is a much bigger existential risk than anything from outer space. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the issue. You don't ignore the bad economy in the US simply because the economy in Uganda is worse. Also, that's a pretty sociopathic worldview to hold. Yes, from your own PoV you're just as dead. But losing your entire species is clearly the worse option, both from an emotional and utilitarian view.

You seem to miss that those countries actually have a past with the US. There is no reason for a new foreign entity to distrust us. There are more countries than the US that have nukes and most are not perceived as problematic. That has a reason.

Say you're suddenly in a room full of foreign people. You don't understand their language and they all wear knives. Do you walk up to them with open arms and hug them? Now replace the people with a pack of knife wielding komodo dragons. Now you can't even read their facial expressions to guesstimate their thoughts. Still good for that hug?

Distrusting the unknown is not an irrational response when your life is on the line.

What guarantee do they have that we cannot do the same? None.

You obviously detected your target before you begin their attack. Based on the transmissions you can estimate their tech level. If you manage to decrypt the data you intercepted you can get pretty accurate idea of the viability of a counterattack. You can also observe the atmospheric composition of your target and any nearby planets to get some more info on their capabilities. If you are still unsure you can always send a covert recon mission to scout out the area (small probe on a flyby trajectory to avoid detection).

All in all, plenty of ways to figure out what you're up against.

You keep on presenting the same argument, but it does not become any more true by repetition. Wiping out someone is always a risk - you need to be damned sure they are and will remain totally harmless after your attack. Within the time such a weapon reaches earth we might have spread across the inner solar system, leaving enough survivors.

It is okay if it's a risk. As long as the risk is smaller than leaving the other party alive it is the logical option. Not to mention that blasting someone only to let them rebuild for the next 200 years, but now with a massive grudge against you is a terrible idea that nobody would approve. Kinetic weapons would only be step 1 of a long and detailed extermination plan to minimize the risk of retaliation later on.

I have said before that humans are just too stubborn to die out on a whim. We might go, but we will not go easy.

You are a breathing bag of carbohydrates that falls apart when it gets nudged too hard. Stubbornness has very VERY little to do with survival during combat involving such high energies. It won't be a glorious starship troopers esque war where humans wrestle with tentacle monsters. It'll be a flash of light before everyone evaporates. You cannot use willpower to reassemble plasma into a human.

[Stargate525]

Then you lose a few cities. Maybe not even that if you scramble their guidance with EMP bursts.

Not saying the US would instantly nuke russia given teleportation, but you need to realize just how close we came to nuclear war throughout the cold war. Computer errors, bears breaking into premises, falsely interpreted training exercises. All these things nearly brought us over the edge multiple times. When you can teleport nukes into enemy bases the threshold to push the button becomes a lot lower and it would happen sooner or later.

If by 'lose a few cities' you mean 'completely obliterate the twenty largest cities in the US and our governmental structure,' then yes. And we didn't have EMP. You can't assume their weapons are impossible to intercept, without affording the same thing to others.

So now you're saying they'll ACCIDENTALLY obliterate us? With the ensuing invasion and occupation and etc. That's a big accident.

Who says they'll answer your message? Maybe you send a message and the first thing you see 40 years later is a flash of antimatter engines, shortly followed by a chunk of steel wiping out humanity. I'm not saying we should be the aggressors here, what I'm saying is that we should lay low until we have interstellar capability ourselves. This means not replying to messages send to us and not sending messages of our own.

No. You are advocating the premise that the logical, rational solution to a first contact is complete, immediate genocide. You can't say that and then go 'but of course WE wouldn't do that...'

Say you're suddenly in a room full of foreign people. You don't understand their language and they all wear knives. Do you walk up to them with open arms and hug them? Now replace the people with a pack of knife wielding komodo dragons. Now you can't even read their facial expressions to guesstimate their thoughts. Still good for that hug?

I'm not arguing we hug them. I'm arguing that we don't do what you suggest, which is immediately start stabbing.

Distrusting the unknown is not an irrational response when your life is on the line.

But trying to kill it is.

You obviously detected your target before you begin their attack. Based on the transmissions you can estimate their tech level. If you manage to decrypt the data you intercepted you can get pretty accurate idea of the viability of a counterattack. You can also observe the atmospheric composition of your target and any nearby planets to get some more info on their capabilities. If you are still unsure you can always send a covert recon mission to scout out the area (small probe on a flyby trajectory to avoid detection).

All in all, plenty of ways to figure out what you're up against.

If you're gathering that much information, you're talking decades of passive observation. If you've done that, your argument of 'well if we make contact they'll immediately try to kill us' makes no sense. YOU haven't. Why would they?

[Camacha]

Okay guys, this discussion is not about reason anymore, as it seems to be about justifying that something terribly unlikely will happen, in the case that another really unprobable thing should occur. I feel all fair arguments have been given, so I will withdraw until new ones are put on the table.

Meanwhile I would kindly request you stay away from any shiny red buttons

[Nikolai]

These seem mutually incompatible. If it is as easy to hide in space as you say (and I'm not disagreeing with you), then you can NEVER know if you've finished the job.

That's only because I switched who I was talking about without warning. As an alien race viewing (relatively) primitive humanity, unless you finish them off before they develop interstellar capability, they can hide in any number of places. If you simply let them develop interstellar travel and then whomp them, you can't be sure that you didn't get them all.

[Camacha]

That's only because I switched who I was talking about without warning. As an alien race viewing (relatively) primitive humanity, unless you finish them off before they develop interstellar capability, they can hide in any number of places. If you simply let them develop interstellar travel and then whomp them, you can't be sure that you didn't get them all.

You still won't be sure. Individual movements are hard to track, so who's to say we are not on or on our way to Mars yet? It might take a long time to rebuild civilization, but if we have learned one thing it is that humans with a grudge are a nasty party to deal with. They hold grudges for a long time and they hold them tight.

[Stargate525]

That's only because I switched who I was talking about without warning. As an alien race viewing (relatively) primitive humanity, unless you finish them off before they develop interstellar capability, they can hide in any number of places. If you simply let them develop interstellar travel and then whomp them, you can't be sure that you didn't get them all.

There's also the lag time. Assuming that, tomorrow, an alien race launches their obliteration strike as soon as they've heard our first radio signal, their star is about seventy light years away. Let's be generous and, for the sake of argument, say that the projectile travels at light speed to us. It will be another seventy years before it hits us.

Seventy years ago we weren't even at the MOON. We didn't have transistors. In the most developed nations on our planet, a large number of homes barely had ELECTRICITY.

When you do something like what you're saying, you aren't pissing off the target you shot at, you're pissing off the ancestors of the target you shot at. You can't see into the future, and you have no clue how quickly or in what ways they will develop. Those hypothetical aliens are shooting at what we looked like seventy years prior, and will hit the civilization that's emerged a century and a half after that.

[Nikolai]

Seventy years ago we weren't even at the MOON.

We weren't at the Moon forty years ago, either. But your point is well-taken, with one caveat. Do you think it is common for races to go from pre-transistor technology to interstellar travel in a century and a half? We're talking about harnessing several orders of magnitude more energy. Unfortunately, we only have one data point, so it's ultimately speculative.

When you do something like what you're saying, you aren't pissing off the target you shot at, you're pissing off the ancestors of the target you shot at.

ITYM "descendants". But when you're talking about the extermination of a race, the family tree is kind of irrelevant, isn't it?

You can't see into the future, and you have no clue how quickly or in what ways they will develop.

I don't know about "no clue". You can say fairly confidently, for example, that we won't have interstellar travel in twenty years' time, not least because the energy needed is prohibitive. Perhaps -- and I admit that this is pretty empty conjecture -- it's also possible to state developmental time limits about nearly any race that's just starting to figure out radio waves.

[Nikolai]

Individual movements are hard to track, so who's to say we are not on or on our way to Mars yet?

It might not be as hard as you think. Releasing the amount of energy needed to get to Mars is hard to hide. Even with our (relatively primitive) technology, the amount of energy released by launching a Shuttle into orbit could be detected across the Solar System.