|
On January 12 2012 06:41 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 01:44 Acrofales wrote:On January 11 2012 14:02 ghost_403 wrote:So I was talking to my coworker, who has a PhD in some ridiculous field like material science or something, about the feasibility of a RKV. This is what he had to say:
The impactor that is believed to have created the Chicxulub crater delivered 4x10^23 J. Going at your recommended 0.5 c, and using the relativistic equation for kinetic energy you would need an object that has a mass of 2.9x10^7 kg. If you were to use iron, which has a density of 7,874 kg/m^3, you would need a sphere that is 380 meters in diameter. But the real problem is that iron is currently going at $0.22/lb. If you figure a 10% price break for bulk it would cost 1.4 billion dollars. And since that impact didn’t actually destroy all life on Earth, if we are aiming at an Earth sized planet we would need even more iron. So as soon as you amass, let’s say, 1.7 billion dollars I will help you research an accelerating laser to use for preemptive measures against a potentially hostile planet.
tl;dr - I'm starting a collection for my research. Lol, there you go. Economic reasons are another good reason why RKVs are completely infeasible in the forseeable future  1.7 Billion dollars is hardly even a line item in the US federal budget.
Not even saying that why buy a lot of iron when you can just use projectiles from asteroid belt that already have sufficient size.
|
On February 09 2012 04:43 Sbrubbles wrote:
Seing how fast technology evolves in the modern era, unless science arrives at a "ceiling" (there's nothing left to discover and all applicable technology has been discovered and applied), any and all other alien races will either be technologically superior (and ABSURDLY so, given how a mere 100 years can completly revolutionize science) and be able to neutralize RKVs or will be too primitive to respond to our signal. The chance of them being at our level (able to build RKVs but not being able to neutralize them) will be likely very low.
I know this does against assumption 3) that RKVs are unstoppable, but unless we reach this science "ceiling", it is probably a false assumption.
Of course, this problem is moot until space colonization is discovered possible, otherwise two alien civilization's home planets will have no reason to harm each other. A galactic civilization that would strike first out of pure paranoia would also be paranoid against everything else and would die before investing space technology.
Your last point is not really that clearly inevitable. We can see that even on Earth how with more destructive weapons powerful countries give themselves the right to prevent others from getting the technology using more and more extreme measures. What about weapons that can destroy the opponent completely without sufficient warning ? US would bomb Iran into stone age even at the slightest hint of Iran being able to build a weapon that can annihilate US population.
|
On February 09 2012 04:53 Kimaker wrote:
Whoa...this is actually fucking cool.
Nice read.
im not going to tell you what to think but why do you think this is cool? the things he's saying has no basis at all (sorry i don't know if this is the right terminology to use in english, not too sure). i mean he says that there will probably be an explosion of 130 MT to 200 GT". I mean - why do you even mention tesla? the only rational to talk about here would be joules.
im sorry but i just don't appreciate anti-scientific rabble like this. if the OP would've reasoned a bit more and not just assuming things that are impossible to assume this could've been alot more interesting.
i guess it could be cool if you didn't want to make it look like research or something. i mean why do you even mention game theory in the thread name? there's no mathematical models or anything such used in this thread... however i guess an economist might call this game theory..
|
On February 09 2012 01:52 HardlyNever wrote:
There are some huge issues with the OP, but the two that first came to mind are these:
1. Being a "destroy all other species" civilization is actually a terrible strategy for civilization survival, mainly because we live in an imperfect, and seemingly random universe. Which leads me to my second point.
2. You are using a model that is not only inconsistant, but largely contrary to the only model we know exists. That model is how humans behave on Earth. While I'm certainly willing to accept the possibility of species behaving differently than humans on Earth, to assume that they will automatically behave in an almost contrary fashion makes no sense. We are the only known sentient species, therefore, we have to assume that any behavior will be more like our own, not less like our own, because it is the only one we know to exist.
Tying those two points together sort of destroys your "game theory (why you call this game theory I have no clue, as it isn't related to game theory at all)." Let's say there are 3 nations on Earth. One of these nations behaves like the "destroy everything" civilization you describe. The other two do not (because not all humans want to destroy other civilizations, although some do). The two nations that do not behave that why, by chance, live much closer to each other and discover each other first, and decide to become friendly towards each other and participate in a mutually beneficial relationship. The "destroy all civilizations" species finds out about one of the friendly nations (the one closer to it) and decides to destroy it. However, because destroying entire civilizations can be difficult, they don't succeed (or they even could succeed, it doesn't matter). This lets the surviving "friendly" civilization know about the hostile one, and they take hostile action. Now you have a war, and it comes down to who destroys who first. Now lets say instead of two friendly nations, they are 10. You can add as many "hostile" nations to the equation as you want, because by your logic, they will never cooperate and only want to destroy all other civilizations.
While it is true some humans want to destroy other civilizations, it cannot be the overriding urge, otherwise there would only be one civilization in the world (which there isn't).
TL;DR Humans are the only known sentient species, so you have to assume other sentient species will behave in a similar fashion, because this is the only known way sentient species behave. While it is certainly possible that other species will behave in a way that isn't human-like, your "destroy all civilizations" behavior is one out of infinite possibilies, and one that will likely get that civilization destroyed by more cooperative civilizations.
Edit: You are also assuming all civilizations will be an equal distance away from each other, which makes no sense at all. If three friendly civilizations are all 10 light years away from each other, and the hostile civilization is 1000 light years away from any of them, the friendly nations could find out about each other, and communicate back and forth at least 50 times before the hostile civilization ever even found out about the friendly civilizations, much less divised a way to kill all 3 civilizations in one fell swoop with a device that is untracable and moves at the speed of light. You make WAY to many assumptions that MUST be perfect in order for your theory to have any relevance.
Actually in case of your 2nd point prudent is to not assume anything considering small dataset. So no, assuming sentient beings are like us is as wrong as assuming they are different in specific way.
|
On February 09 2012 05:22 tsilaicos wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 04:53 Kimaker wrote:
Whoa...this is actually fucking cool.
Nice read. im not going to tell you what to think but why do you think this is cool? the things he's saying has no basis at all (sorry i don't know if this is the right terminology to use in english, not too sure). i mean he says that there will probably be an explosion of 130 MT to 200 GT". I mean - why do you even mention tesla? the only rational to talk about here would be joules.
He is most likely referring to Megaton and Gigaton, not Teslas
|
On February 09 2012 05:22 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 01:52 HardlyNever wrote:
There are some huge issues with the OP, but the two that first came to mind are these:
1. Being a "destroy all other species" civilization is actually a terrible strategy for civilization survival, mainly because we live in an imperfect, and seemingly random universe. Which leads me to my second point.
2. You are using a model that is not only inconsistant, but largely contrary to the only model we know exists. That model is how humans behave on Earth. While I'm certainly willing to accept the possibility of species behaving differently than humans on Earth, to assume that they will automatically behave in an almost contrary fashion makes no sense. We are the only known sentient species, therefore, we have to assume that any behavior will be more like our own, not less like our own, because it is the only one we know to exist.
Tying those two points together sort of destroys your "game theory (why you call this game theory I have no clue, as it isn't related to game theory at all)." Let's say there are 3 nations on Earth. One of these nations behaves like the "destroy everything" civilization you describe. The other two do not (because not all humans want to destroy other civilizations, although some do). The two nations that do not behave that why, by chance, live much closer to each other and discover each other first, and decide to become friendly towards each other and participate in a mutually beneficial relationship. The "destroy all civilizations" species finds out about one of the friendly nations (the one closer to it) and decides to destroy it. However, because destroying entire civilizations can be difficult, they don't succeed (or they even could succeed, it doesn't matter). This lets the surviving "friendly" civilization know about the hostile one, and they take hostile action. Now you have a war, and it comes down to who destroys who first. Now lets say instead of two friendly nations, they are 10. You can add as many "hostile" nations to the equation as you want, because by your logic, they will never cooperate and only want to destroy all other civilizations.
While it is true some humans want to destroy other civilizations, it cannot be the overriding urge, otherwise there would only be one civilization in the world (which there isn't).
TL;DR Humans are the only known sentient species, so you have to assume other sentient species will behave in a similar fashion, because this is the only known way sentient species behave. While it is certainly possible that other species will behave in a way that isn't human-like, your "destroy all civilizations" behavior is one out of infinite possibilies, and one that will likely get that civilization destroyed by more cooperative civilizations.
Edit: You are also assuming all civilizations will be an equal distance away from each other, which makes no sense at all. If three friendly civilizations are all 10 light years away from each other, and the hostile civilization is 1000 light years away from any of them, the friendly nations could find out about each other, and communicate back and forth at least 50 times before the hostile civilization ever even found out about the friendly civilizations, much less divised a way to kill all 3 civilizations in one fell swoop with a device that is untracable and moves at the speed of light. You make WAY to many assumptions that MUST be perfect in order for your theory to have any relevance. Actually in case of your 2nd point prudent is to not assume anything considering small dataset. So no, assuming sentient beings are like us is as wrong as assuming they are different in specific way.
While I agree the data set is small, scientifically there is no reason to believe that other sentient life will act in one specific way or another. At the very least, you could only say there are infinite, equally probable ways in which a sentient life form would behave. Why would they behave in a manner such as the OP mentioned? There is no scientific evidence to support an idea that they would behave that way.
Additionally, despite the small data set, why would you ignore the one and only data point you had? Saying all sentient life will behave in a human-like way is a flawed theory, for sure, given the small amount of data, but it is the only scientifically supportable theory you could possibly make.
You can either chose to a) ignore all evidence completely and open up the possibilities to infinity or b) acknowledge the small data set and construct a theory the best you can based on your single data point.
Anything other than that makes no sense.
Edit: I've chosen option B, but option A is also viable. The OP has chosen option C, which to say he chose 1 out of infinity possibilities, said "game theory" a couple of times, talked about the speed of light, and said we're all doomed.
|
I just read this entire thread, and enjoyed every page (especially caller's post about space dicks).
And he is referring to mega and gigatons, Tesla measures magnetic flux density. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=megaton
|
On February 09 2012 05:46 Warmonger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 05:22 tsilaicos wrote:On February 09 2012 04:53 Kimaker wrote:
Whoa...this is actually fucking cool.
Nice read. im not going to tell you what to think but why do you think this is cool? the things he's saying has no basis at all (sorry i don't know if this is the right terminology to use in english, not too sure). i mean he says that there will probably be an explosion of 130 MT to 200 GT". I mean - why do you even mention tesla? the only rational to talk about here would be joules. He is most likely referring to Megaton and Gigaton, not Teslas
I guess so but is it correct to use just "T" for "ton"? I've never seen it but it might be praxis in other countries i don't know. Still doesn't really make it alot more valid... imo.
|
On February 09 2012 05:46 Warmonger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 05:22 tsilaicos wrote:On February 09 2012 04:53 Kimaker wrote:
Whoa...this is actually fucking cool.
Nice read. im not going to tell you what to think but why do you think this is cool? the things he's saying has no basis at all (sorry i don't know if this is the right terminology to use in english, not too sure). i mean he says that there will probably be an explosion of 130 MT to 200 GT". I mean - why do you even mention tesla? the only rational to talk about here would be joules. He is most likely referring to Megaton and Gigaton, not Teslas
LOL I read it first as Tesla, but then I was thinking why would he use that unit? But he's using Megaton as in pounds of TNT necessary to create this explosion.
I think this is interesting, albeit depressing. If there are aliens with sufficiently advanced tech to do this, and they aren't benevolent, then we'll never know about them :/ To think that they (or if we encounter them first, we) would just blow another civilization out of the sky without meeting them is so against all my scientific inclinations. If the military controls the planet at that point it probably will happen though!
|
On February 09 2012 05:52 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 05:22 mcc wrote:On February 09 2012 01:52 HardlyNever wrote:
There are some huge issues with the OP, but the two that first came to mind are these:
1. Being a "destroy all other species" civilization is actually a terrible strategy for civilization survival, mainly because we live in an imperfect, and seemingly random universe. Which leads me to my second point.
2. You are using a model that is not only inconsistant, but largely contrary to the only model we know exists. That model is how humans behave on Earth. While I'm certainly willing to accept the possibility of species behaving differently than humans on Earth, to assume that they will automatically behave in an almost contrary fashion makes no sense. We are the only known sentient species, therefore, we have to assume that any behavior will be more like our own, not less like our own, because it is the only one we know to exist.
Tying those two points together sort of destroys your "game theory (why you call this game theory I have no clue, as it isn't related to game theory at all)." Let's say there are 3 nations on Earth. One of these nations behaves like the "destroy everything" civilization you describe. The other two do not (because not all humans want to destroy other civilizations, although some do). The two nations that do not behave that why, by chance, live much closer to each other and discover each other first, and decide to become friendly towards each other and participate in a mutually beneficial relationship. The "destroy all civilizations" species finds out about one of the friendly nations (the one closer to it) and decides to destroy it. However, because destroying entire civilizations can be difficult, they don't succeed (or they even could succeed, it doesn't matter). This lets the surviving "friendly" civilization know about the hostile one, and they take hostile action. Now you have a war, and it comes down to who destroys who first. Now lets say instead of two friendly nations, they are 10. You can add as many "hostile" nations to the equation as you want, because by your logic, they will never cooperate and only want to destroy all other civilizations.
While it is true some humans want to destroy other civilizations, it cannot be the overriding urge, otherwise there would only be one civilization in the world (which there isn't).
TL;DR Humans are the only known sentient species, so you have to assume other sentient species will behave in a similar fashion, because this is the only known way sentient species behave. While it is certainly possible that other species will behave in a way that isn't human-like, your "destroy all civilizations" behavior is one out of infinite possibilies, and one that will likely get that civilization destroyed by more cooperative civilizations.
Edit: You are also assuming all civilizations will be an equal distance away from each other, which makes no sense at all. If three friendly civilizations are all 10 light years away from each other, and the hostile civilization is 1000 light years away from any of them, the friendly nations could find out about each other, and communicate back and forth at least 50 times before the hostile civilization ever even found out about the friendly civilizations, much less divised a way to kill all 3 civilizations in one fell swoop with a device that is untracable and moves at the speed of light. You make WAY to many assumptions that MUST be perfect in order for your theory to have any relevance. Actually in case of your 2nd point prudent is to not assume anything considering small dataset. So no, assuming sentient beings are like us is as wrong as assuming they are different in specific way. While I agree the data set is small, scientifically there is no reason to believe that other sentient life will act in one specific way or another. At the very least, you could only say there are infinite, equally probable ways in which a sentient life form would behave. Why would they behave in a manner such as the OP mentioned? There is no scientific evidence to support an idea that they would behave that way. Additionally, despite the small data set, why would you ignore the one and only data point you had? Saying all sentient life will behave in a human-like way is a flawed theory, for sure, given the small amount of data, but it is the only scientifically supportable theory you could possibly make. You can either chose to a) ignore all evidence completely and open up the possibilities to infinity or b) acknowledge the small data set and construct a theory the best you can based on your single data point. Anything other than that makes no sense. Edit: I've chosen option B, but option A is also viable. The OP has chosen option C, which to say he chose 1 out of infinity possibilities, said "game theory" a couple of times, talked about the speed of light, and said we're all doomed.
If his assumptions about effectivity of the weaponry were correct (which with current science they seem to be), the civilizations that survive would behave in such a way. There might have been civilizations that were not like that, but those are now statistically extinct.
Even if you look at humans on Earth. We behave in some ways strikingly similarly to the civilizations he describes. Why are you assuming humans are counterexample ?
And no it is not the only supportable scientific theory you can make. There are scientific theories and there is faulty inductive reasoning. This would be a case of faulty inductive reasoning.
|
On February 09 2012 06:24 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 05:52 HardlyNever wrote:On February 09 2012 05:22 mcc wrote:On February 09 2012 01:52 HardlyNever wrote:
There are some huge issues with the OP, but the two that first came to mind are these:
1. Being a "destroy all other species" civilization is actually a terrible strategy for civilization survival, mainly because we live in an imperfect, and seemingly random universe. Which leads me to my second point.
2. You are using a model that is not only inconsistant, but largely contrary to the only model we know exists. That model is how humans behave on Earth. While I'm certainly willing to accept the possibility of species behaving differently than humans on Earth, to assume that they will automatically behave in an almost contrary fashion makes no sense. We are the only known sentient species, therefore, we have to assume that any behavior will be more like our own, not less like our own, because it is the only one we know to exist.
Tying those two points together sort of destroys your "game theory (why you call this game theory I have no clue, as it isn't related to game theory at all)." Let's say there are 3 nations on Earth. One of these nations behaves like the "destroy everything" civilization you describe. The other two do not (because not all humans want to destroy other civilizations, although some do). The two nations that do not behave that why, by chance, live much closer to each other and discover each other first, and decide to become friendly towards each other and participate in a mutually beneficial relationship. The "destroy all civilizations" species finds out about one of the friendly nations (the one closer to it) and decides to destroy it. However, because destroying entire civilizations can be difficult, they don't succeed (or they even could succeed, it doesn't matter). This lets the surviving "friendly" civilization know about the hostile one, and they take hostile action. Now you have a war, and it comes down to who destroys who first. Now lets say instead of two friendly nations, they are 10. You can add as many "hostile" nations to the equation as you want, because by your logic, they will never cooperate and only want to destroy all other civilizations.
While it is true some humans want to destroy other civilizations, it cannot be the overriding urge, otherwise there would only be one civilization in the world (which there isn't).
TL;DR Humans are the only known sentient species, so you have to assume other sentient species will behave in a similar fashion, because this is the only known way sentient species behave. While it is certainly possible that other species will behave in a way that isn't human-like, your "destroy all civilizations" behavior is one out of infinite possibilies, and one that will likely get that civilization destroyed by more cooperative civilizations.
Edit: You are also assuming all civilizations will be an equal distance away from each other, which makes no sense at all. If three friendly civilizations are all 10 light years away from each other, and the hostile civilization is 1000 light years away from any of them, the friendly nations could find out about each other, and communicate back and forth at least 50 times before the hostile civilization ever even found out about the friendly civilizations, much less divised a way to kill all 3 civilizations in one fell swoop with a device that is untracable and moves at the speed of light. You make WAY to many assumptions that MUST be perfect in order for your theory to have any relevance. Actually in case of your 2nd point prudent is to not assume anything considering small dataset. So no, assuming sentient beings are like us is as wrong as assuming they are different in specific way. While I agree the data set is small, scientifically there is no reason to believe that other sentient life will act in one specific way or another. At the very least, you could only say there are infinite, equally probable ways in which a sentient life form would behave. Why would they behave in a manner such as the OP mentioned? There is no scientific evidence to support an idea that they would behave that way. Additionally, despite the small data set, why would you ignore the one and only data point you had? Saying all sentient life will behave in a human-like way is a flawed theory, for sure, given the small amount of data, but it is the only scientifically supportable theory you could possibly make. You can either chose to a) ignore all evidence completely and open up the possibilities to infinity or b) acknowledge the small data set and construct a theory the best you can based on your single data point. Anything other than that makes no sense. Edit: I've chosen option B, but option A is also viable. The OP has chosen option C, which to say he chose 1 out of infinity possibilities, said "game theory" a couple of times, talked about the speed of light, and said we're all doomed. If his assumptions about effectivity of the weaponry were correct (which with current science they seem to be), the civilizations that survive would behave in such a way. There might have been civilizations that were not like that, but those are now statistically extinct. Even if you look at humans on Earth. We behave in some ways strikingly similarly to the civilizations he describes. Why are you assuming humans are counterexample ? And no it is not the only supportable scientific theory you can make. There are scientific theories and there is faulty inductive reasoning. This would be a case of faulty inductive reasoning.
Humans are a counterexample because we don't destroy other civilizations upon first contact. We haven't done it here on Earth, and all of our deliberate attempts at interstellar communication have been peaceful. But you are assuming that some other species will premeditate that they will destroy all other species, without ever developing the means to communicate at light speed (radio waves), or send out any other signal that they exist, while simultaneously developing a method to detect said radio waves or other signals. Right...
You're just plain wrong. I really don't know how else to say it. Give a scientifically supportable theory to determine how other sentient species behave based on evidence. I think we'll be here a while.
There is also applying "game theory" to places that they don't belong. That is what this is.
I'll give you one out of infinity scenarios that makes this just as likely as not. Species A is a species that behaves like the OP says. They detect species B, and decide they want to destroy species B. They sent an "RKV" to destroy the species and succeed. However, species B was actually part of a larger federation of species, which Species A did not detect, because they are further away, and their first and only response was to destroy anything on sight. The species that are part of the larger federation discover species A, and destroy it. Species A's civilization destroying days are over.
That is one out of infinity possibilities, because there is now way to know how any other species or groups of species will behave. Claiming you know makes you look stupid. Thinking an entire species will think the (stupid) way you do, and will destroy all other species that think differently is dumb, and is only 1 of infinite possibilities.
There really isn't anything else to say. If you can't see that, there is no helping you.
|
On February 09 2012 06:39 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 06:24 mcc wrote:On February 09 2012 05:52 HardlyNever wrote:On February 09 2012 05:22 mcc wrote:On February 09 2012 01:52 HardlyNever wrote:
There are some huge issues with the OP, but the two that first came to mind are these:
1. Being a "destroy all other species" civilization is actually a terrible strategy for civilization survival, mainly because we live in an imperfect, and seemingly random universe. Which leads me to my second point.
2. You are using a model that is not only inconsistant, but largely contrary to the only model we know exists. That model is how humans behave on Earth. While I'm certainly willing to accept the possibility of species behaving differently than humans on Earth, to assume that they will automatically behave in an almost contrary fashion makes no sense. We are the only known sentient species, therefore, we have to assume that any behavior will be more like our own, not less like our own, because it is the only one we know to exist.
Tying those two points together sort of destroys your "game theory (why you call this game theory I have no clue, as it isn't related to game theory at all)." Let's say there are 3 nations on Earth. One of these nations behaves like the "destroy everything" civilization you describe. The other two do not (because not all humans want to destroy other civilizations, although some do). The two nations that do not behave that why, by chance, live much closer to each other and discover each other first, and decide to become friendly towards each other and participate in a mutually beneficial relationship. The "destroy all civilizations" species finds out about one of the friendly nations (the one closer to it) and decides to destroy it. However, because destroying entire civilizations can be difficult, they don't succeed (or they even could succeed, it doesn't matter). This lets the surviving "friendly" civilization know about the hostile one, and they take hostile action. Now you have a war, and it comes down to who destroys who first. Now lets say instead of two friendly nations, they are 10. You can add as many "hostile" nations to the equation as you want, because by your logic, they will never cooperate and only want to destroy all other civilizations.
While it is true some humans want to destroy other civilizations, it cannot be the overriding urge, otherwise there would only be one civilization in the world (which there isn't).
TL;DR Humans are the only known sentient species, so you have to assume other sentient species will behave in a similar fashion, because this is the only known way sentient species behave. While it is certainly possible that other species will behave in a way that isn't human-like, your "destroy all civilizations" behavior is one out of infinite possibilies, and one that will likely get that civilization destroyed by more cooperative civilizations.
Edit: You are also assuming all civilizations will be an equal distance away from each other, which makes no sense at all. If three friendly civilizations are all 10 light years away from each other, and the hostile civilization is 1000 light years away from any of them, the friendly nations could find out about each other, and communicate back and forth at least 50 times before the hostile civilization ever even found out about the friendly civilizations, much less divised a way to kill all 3 civilizations in one fell swoop with a device that is untracable and moves at the speed of light. You make WAY to many assumptions that MUST be perfect in order for your theory to have any relevance. Actually in case of your 2nd point prudent is to not assume anything considering small dataset. So no, assuming sentient beings are like us is as wrong as assuming they are different in specific way. While I agree the data set is small, scientifically there is no reason to believe that other sentient life will act in one specific way or another. At the very least, you could only say there are infinite, equally probable ways in which a sentient life form would behave. Why would they behave in a manner such as the OP mentioned? There is no scientific evidence to support an idea that they would behave that way. Additionally, despite the small data set, why would you ignore the one and only data point you had? Saying all sentient life will behave in a human-like way is a flawed theory, for sure, given the small amount of data, but it is the only scientifically supportable theory you could possibly make. You can either chose to a) ignore all evidence completely and open up the possibilities to infinity or b) acknowledge the small data set and construct a theory the best you can based on your single data point. Anything other than that makes no sense. Edit: I've chosen option B, but option A is also viable. The OP has chosen option C, which to say he chose 1 out of infinity possibilities, said "game theory" a couple of times, talked about the speed of light, and said we're all doomed. If his assumptions about effectivity of the weaponry were correct (which with current science they seem to be), the civilizations that survive would behave in such a way. There might have been civilizations that were not like that, but those are now statistically extinct. Even if you look at humans on Earth. We behave in some ways strikingly similarly to the civilizations he describes. Why are you assuming humans are counterexample ? And no it is not the only supportable scientific theory you can make. There are scientific theories and there is faulty inductive reasoning. This would be a case of faulty inductive reasoning. Humans are a counterexample because we don't destroy other civilizations upon first contact. We haven't done it here on Earth, and all of our deliberate attempts at interstellar communication have been peaceful. But you are assuming that some other species will premeditate that they will destroy all other species, without ever developing the means to communicate at light speed (radio waves), or send out any other signal that they exist, while simultaneously developing a method to detect said radio waves or other signals. Right... You're just plain wrong. I really don't know how else to say it. Give a scientifically supportable theory to determine how other sentient species behave based on evidence. I think we'll be here a while. There is also applying "game theory" to places that they don't belong. That is what this is. I'll give you one out of infinity scenarios that makes this just as likely as not. Species A is a species that behaves like the OP says. They detect species B, and decide they want to destroy species B. They sent an "RKV" to destroy the species and succeed. However, species B was actually part of a larger federation of species, which Species A did not detect, because they are further away, and their first and only response was to destroy anything on sight. The species that are part of the larger federation discover species A, and destroy it. Species A's civilization destroying days are over. That is one out of infinity possibilities, because there is now way to know how any other species or groups of species will behave. Claiming you know makes you look stupid. Thinking an entire species will think the (stupid) way you do, and will destroy all other species that think differently is dumb, and is only 1 of infinite possibilities. There really isn't anything else to say. If you can't see that, there is no helping you.
I don't think you understand, if civilizations are not able to communicate as fast as they can potentially kill each other, there is no motivation for them to try to communicate. Thus the "groups" you mention would only be possible if they somehow could communicate much faster than the speed of light. The only rational thing left to do is to kill everyone in sight, or pray. For survival, the first option is just rationally and objectively better.
Edit: its kinda like the scene in The Dark Knight, where the joker takes the two ships hostage and makes them play their little game. Except in this situation, it would be many ships
|
First of all, we have no idea how common life is in the universe. It makes sense that the earth is not the only place where life exists, but it may still be so rare that no two civilizations ever encounter each other. Until we have better information on how much life there is in the universe, none of this can be taken as fact.
Secondly, this makes the assumption that much of the life in the universe is similar to that which resides on earth. While life probably does always evolve in similar ways to what happened on earth, that doesn't mean life forms retain many of their evolutionary instincts after they gain access to their own genetic source code.
Our own civilization is quickly nearing this point of redesigning our own species. By the end of the century, many people believe for good reason that we will have reached a technological singularity. We will give birth to machines that are superior to humans in every way, and are capable of redesigning themselves.
I think that trying to make assumptions about whether or not a civilization like this will have any interest in destroying other forms of life in the universe is absurd. We have no way of predicting the goals of any alien civilization that has made this transition into the robotic form.
|
On February 09 2012 06:54 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 06:39 HardlyNever wrote:On February 09 2012 06:24 mcc wrote:On February 09 2012 05:52 HardlyNever wrote:On February 09 2012 05:22 mcc wrote:On February 09 2012 01:52 HardlyNever wrote:
There are some huge issues with the OP, but the two that first came to mind are these:
1. Being a "destroy all other species" civilization is actually a terrible strategy for civilization survival, mainly because we live in an imperfect, and seemingly random universe. Which leads me to my second point.
2. You are using a model that is not only inconsistant, but largely contrary to the only model we know exists. That model is how humans behave on Earth. While I'm certainly willing to accept the possibility of species behaving differently than humans on Earth, to assume that they will automatically behave in an almost contrary fashion makes no sense. We are the only known sentient species, therefore, we have to assume that any behavior will be more like our own, not less like our own, because it is the only one we know to exist.
Tying those two points together sort of destroys your "game theory (why you call this game theory I have no clue, as it isn't related to game theory at all)." Let's say there are 3 nations on Earth. One of these nations behaves like the "destroy everything" civilization you describe. The other two do not (because not all humans want to destroy other civilizations, although some do). The two nations that do not behave that why, by chance, live much closer to each other and discover each other first, and decide to become friendly towards each other and participate in a mutually beneficial relationship. The "destroy all civilizations" species finds out about one of the friendly nations (the one closer to it) and decides to destroy it. However, because destroying entire civilizations can be difficult, they don't succeed (or they even could succeed, it doesn't matter). This lets the surviving "friendly" civilization know about the hostile one, and they take hostile action. Now you have a war, and it comes down to who destroys who first. Now lets say instead of two friendly nations, they are 10. You can add as many "hostile" nations to the equation as you want, because by your logic, they will never cooperate and only want to destroy all other civilizations.
While it is true some humans want to destroy other civilizations, it cannot be the overriding urge, otherwise there would only be one civilization in the world (which there isn't).
TL;DR Humans are the only known sentient species, so you have to assume other sentient species will behave in a similar fashion, because this is the only known way sentient species behave. While it is certainly possible that other species will behave in a way that isn't human-like, your "destroy all civilizations" behavior is one out of infinite possibilies, and one that will likely get that civilization destroyed by more cooperative civilizations.
Edit: You are also assuming all civilizations will be an equal distance away from each other, which makes no sense at all. If three friendly civilizations are all 10 light years away from each other, and the hostile civilization is 1000 light years away from any of them, the friendly nations could find out about each other, and communicate back and forth at least 50 times before the hostile civilization ever even found out about the friendly civilizations, much less divised a way to kill all 3 civilizations in one fell swoop with a device that is untracable and moves at the speed of light. You make WAY to many assumptions that MUST be perfect in order for your theory to have any relevance. Actually in case of your 2nd point prudent is to not assume anything considering small dataset. So no, assuming sentient beings are like us is as wrong as assuming they are different in specific way. While I agree the data set is small, scientifically there is no reason to believe that other sentient life will act in one specific way or another. At the very least, you could only say there are infinite, equally probable ways in which a sentient life form would behave. Why would they behave in a manner such as the OP mentioned? There is no scientific evidence to support an idea that they would behave that way. Additionally, despite the small data set, why would you ignore the one and only data point you had? Saying all sentient life will behave in a human-like way is a flawed theory, for sure, given the small amount of data, but it is the only scientifically supportable theory you could possibly make. You can either chose to a) ignore all evidence completely and open up the possibilities to infinity or b) acknowledge the small data set and construct a theory the best you can based on your single data point. Anything other than that makes no sense. Edit: I've chosen option B, but option A is also viable. The OP has chosen option C, which to say he chose 1 out of infinity possibilities, said "game theory" a couple of times, talked about the speed of light, and said we're all doomed. If his assumptions about effectivity of the weaponry were correct (which with current science they seem to be), the civilizations that survive would behave in such a way. There might have been civilizations that were not like that, but those are now statistically extinct. Even if you look at humans on Earth. We behave in some ways strikingly similarly to the civilizations he describes. Why are you assuming humans are counterexample ? And no it is not the only supportable scientific theory you can make. There are scientific theories and there is faulty inductive reasoning. This would be a case of faulty inductive reasoning. Humans are a counterexample because we don't destroy other civilizations upon first contact. We haven't done it here on Earth, and all of our deliberate attempts at interstellar communication have been peaceful. But you are assuming that some other species will premeditate that they will destroy all other species, without ever developing the means to communicate at light speed (radio waves), or send out any other signal that they exist, while simultaneously developing a method to detect said radio waves or other signals. Right... You're just plain wrong. I really don't know how else to say it. Give a scientifically supportable theory to determine how other sentient species behave based on evidence. I think we'll be here a while. There is also applying "game theory" to places that they don't belong. That is what this is. I'll give you one out of infinity scenarios that makes this just as likely as not. Species A is a species that behaves like the OP says. They detect species B, and decide they want to destroy species B. They sent an "RKV" to destroy the species and succeed. However, species B was actually part of a larger federation of species, which Species A did not detect, because they are further away, and their first and only response was to destroy anything on sight. The species that are part of the larger federation discover species A, and destroy it. Species A's civilization destroying days are over. That is one out of infinity possibilities, because there is now way to know how any other species or groups of species will behave. Claiming you know makes you look stupid. Thinking an entire species will think the (stupid) way you do, and will destroy all other species that think differently is dumb, and is only 1 of infinite possibilities. There really isn't anything else to say. If you can't see that, there is no helping you. I don't think you understand, if civilizations are not able to communicate as fast as they can potentially kill each other, there is no motivation for them to try to communicate. Thus the "groups" you mention would only be possible if they somehow could communicate much faster than the speed of light. The only rational thing left to do is to kill everyone in sight, or pray. For survival, the first option is just rationally and objectively better. Edit: its kinda like the scene in The Dark Knight, where the joker takes the two ships hostage and makes them play their little game. Except in this situation, it would be many ships
I understand the "logic" of it, the problem is, there is 0 evidence to believe species will behave like that, at all. The one sentient species we know about (humans) don't, so why would we assume that any other species would?
There is plenty of motivation to communicate instead of kill, only communication carries a seemingly larger risk than killing. That isn't mean there is no motivation. This is assuming you could completely kill an entire civilization the first try, which is a huge assumption to make.
My whole point is that there is no reason to assume this is more likely than any of the other infinite possibilities that the behavior of species may take. Just try to convince one single species (our own) that this is the BEST course of action for us to take. It isn't realistically going to happen.
|
On February 09 2012 06:24 mcc wrote:
If his assumptions about effectivity of the weaponry were correct (which with current science they seem to be), the civilizations that survive would behave in such a way. There might have been civilizations that were not like that, but those are now statistically extinct.
Statistically extinct?
... what ... the ?
So we are running statistics on imaginary aliens now?
Also, no way we could aim a weapon at something that far away.
Gravitation would pull it off course, and we can't chart everything in between and their movements relative to each other perfectly, because we can't see them all.
People just don't realize how big space is ...
|
Some comments on your numbers 
Chicxulub crater meteroid (the one that wiped out the dinos):
The impactor had an estimated diameter of 10 km and delivered an estimated 96 teratons of TNT (4.0×10^23 J). By contrast, the most powerful man-made explosive device ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba, had a yield of only 50 megatons of TNT (2.1×10^17 J), making the Chicxulub impact 2 million times more powerful. Even the most energetic known volcanic eruption, which released approximately 240 gigatons of TNT (1.0×10^21 J) and created the La Garita Caldera, was substantially less powerful than the Chicxulub impact.
From one of my favorite blogs: How to destroy the earth
Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe.
You've seen the action movies where the bad guy threatens to destroy the Earth. You've heard people on the news claiming that the next nuclear war or cutting down rainforests or persisting in releasing hideous quantities of pollution into the atmosphere threatens to end the world.
Fools.
The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron.
Commenting on the forementioned meteroid:
Method #6: Blown up
Method: This method involves detonating a bomb so big that it blasts the Earth to pieces.
This, to say the least, requires a big bomb. All the explosives mankind has ever created, nuclear or non-, gathered together and detonated simultaneously, would make a significant crater and wreck the planet's ecosystem, but barely scratch the surface of the planet. There is evidence that in the past, asteroids have hit the Earth with the explosive yield of five billion Hiroshima bombs - and such evidence is difficult to find.
Finally:
Method #9: Pulverized by impact with blunt instrument
You will need: a big heavy rock, something with a bit of a swing to it... perhaps Mars. [...] Obviously a smaller rock would do the job, you just need to fire it faster. Taking mass dilation into account, a 5,000,000,000,000-tonne asteroid at 90% of light speed would do just as well.
Feasibility rating: 7/10. Pretty plausible.
|
The closer to light speed something is going (and thus the harder it is to detect), is also how hard it is for it to change its direction. The idea of "course corrections" the OP proposes could easily use up the majority of the mass of the object, especially considering each such "course correction" would have to take into account all possible future changes in the predicted behavior of the object.
Additionally, I think the OP is overestimating offensive technology and underestimating defensive technology. Assuming a projectile moving at .5c, there's no reason that a sufficiently advanced civilization couldn't launch an intercepting vehicle at .6c and quickly catch it, since an active interceptor would be much lighter than the OP's proposed passive projectile - all it would have to do is deflect it, rather than actually vaporize it. In fact,
And one other thing - according to chaos theory it is probably *actually impossible* to hit a planet on the other side of the galaxy with a dumb projectile. Quantum-scale changes in initial conditions, in a system that complex, can lead to macroscopic changes in outcomes. In other words - by the uncertainty principle, it would be impossible to ever know the location of everything between you and the target with enough accuracy to shoot something and hit it. And once you go and make your projectile intelligent, it can be detected and destroyed or tricked.
Also - a sufficiently advanced civilization could easily detect incoming projectiles - either by gravitational lensing, or by active sensing, or even just by detection of the projectile's blackbody radiation. (Unless the projectile is an actual black hole, there will always be a certain amount of blackbody radiation.) In fact, this defensive civilization would likely detect the projectile with the exact same mechanisms they set up to detect comets and asteroids, and interstellar refuse, which is on a collision course with their planet.
Once a civilization has detected and stopped your attack, you're *completely* fucked. If life is non-unique, then the only reasonable assumption is that there will always be a bigger fish out there.
|
|
|
On February 09 2012 06:39 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 06:24 mcc wrote:On February 09 2012 05:52 HardlyNever wrote:On February 09 2012 05:22 mcc wrote:On February 09 2012 01:52 HardlyNever wrote:
There are some huge issues with the OP, but the two that first came to mind are these:
1. Being a "destroy all other species" civilization is actually a terrible strategy for civilization survival, mainly because we live in an imperfect, and seemingly random universe. Which leads me to my second point.
2. You are using a model that is not only inconsistant, but largely contrary to the only model we know exists. That model is how humans behave on Earth. While I'm certainly willing to accept the possibility of species behaving differently than humans on Earth, to assume that they will automatically behave in an almost contrary fashion makes no sense. We are the only known sentient species, therefore, we have to assume that any behavior will be more like our own, not less like our own, because it is the only one we know to exist.
Tying those two points together sort of destroys your "game theory (why you call this game theory I have no clue, as it isn't related to game theory at all)." Let's say there are 3 nations on Earth. One of these nations behaves like the "destroy everything" civilization you describe. The other two do not (because not all humans want to destroy other civilizations, although some do). The two nations that do not behave that why, by chance, live much closer to each other and discover each other first, and decide to become friendly towards each other and participate in a mutually beneficial relationship. The "destroy all civilizations" species finds out about one of the friendly nations (the one closer to it) and decides to destroy it. However, because destroying entire civilizations can be difficult, they don't succeed (or they even could succeed, it doesn't matter). This lets the surviving "friendly" civilization know about the hostile one, and they take hostile action. Now you have a war, and it comes down to who destroys who first. Now lets say instead of two friendly nations, they are 10. You can add as many "hostile" nations to the equation as you want, because by your logic, they will never cooperate and only want to destroy all other civilizations.
While it is true some humans want to destroy other civilizations, it cannot be the overriding urge, otherwise there would only be one civilization in the world (which there isn't).
TL;DR Humans are the only known sentient species, so you have to assume other sentient species will behave in a similar fashion, because this is the only known way sentient species behave. While it is certainly possible that other species will behave in a way that isn't human-like, your "destroy all civilizations" behavior is one out of infinite possibilies, and one that will likely get that civilization destroyed by more cooperative civilizations.
Edit: You are also assuming all civilizations will be an equal distance away from each other, which makes no sense at all. If three friendly civilizations are all 10 light years away from each other, and the hostile civilization is 1000 light years away from any of them, the friendly nations could find out about each other, and communicate back and forth at least 50 times before the hostile civilization ever even found out about the friendly civilizations, much less divised a way to kill all 3 civilizations in one fell swoop with a device that is untracable and moves at the speed of light. You make WAY to many assumptions that MUST be perfect in order for your theory to have any relevance. Actually in case of your 2nd point prudent is to not assume anything considering small dataset. So no, assuming sentient beings are like us is as wrong as assuming they are different in specific way. While I agree the data set is small, scientifically there is no reason to believe that other sentient life will act in one specific way or another. At the very least, you could only say there are infinite, equally probable ways in which a sentient life form would behave. Why would they behave in a manner such as the OP mentioned? There is no scientific evidence to support an idea that they would behave that way. Additionally, despite the small data set, why would you ignore the one and only data point you had? Saying all sentient life will behave in a human-like way is a flawed theory, for sure, given the small amount of data, but it is the only scientifically supportable theory you could possibly make. You can either chose to a) ignore all evidence completely and open up the possibilities to infinity or b) acknowledge the small data set and construct a theory the best you can based on your single data point. Anything other than that makes no sense. Edit: I've chosen option B, but option A is also viable. The OP has chosen option C, which to say he chose 1 out of infinity possibilities, said "game theory" a couple of times, talked about the speed of light, and said we're all doomed. If his assumptions about effectivity of the weaponry were correct (which with current science they seem to be), the civilizations that survive would behave in such a way. There might have been civilizations that were not like that, but those are now statistically extinct. Even if you look at humans on Earth. We behave in some ways strikingly similarly to the civilizations he describes. Why are you assuming humans are counterexample ? And no it is not the only supportable scientific theory you can make. There are scientific theories and there is faulty inductive reasoning. This would be a case of faulty inductive reasoning. Humans are a counterexample because we don't destroy other civilizations upon first contact. We haven't done it here on Earth, and all of our deliberate attempts at interstellar communication have been peaceful. But you are assuming that some other species will premeditate that they will destroy all other species, without ever developing the means to communicate at light speed (radio waves), or send out any other signal that they exist, while simultaneously developing a method to detect said radio waves or other signals. Right... You're just plain wrong. I really don't know how else to say it. Give a scientifically supportable theory to determine how other sentient species behave based on evidence. I think we'll be here a while. There is also applying "game theory" to places that they don't belong. That is what this is. I'll give you one out of infinity scenarios that makes this just as likely as not. Species A is a species that behaves like the OP says. They detect species B, and decide they want to destroy species B. They sent an "RKV" to destroy the species and succeed. However, species B was actually part of a larger federation of species, which Species A did not detect, because they are further away, and their first and only response was to destroy anything on sight. The species that are part of the larger federation discover species A, and destroy it. Species A's civilization destroying days are over. That is one out of infinity possibilities, because there is now way to know how any other species or groups of species will behave. Claiming you know makes you look stupid. Thinking an entire species will think the (stupid) way you do, and will destroy all other species that think differently is dumb, and is only 1 of infinite possibilities. There really isn't anything else to say. If you can't see that, there is no helping you.
Condescending much?
First, as I said in different post, we on Earth actually do something similar, just not on that scale as there is no need to do that as we do not have weapons capable completely destroying an enemy or without them retaliating. If for example Iran was developing a weapon that was capable destroying US with no warning whatsoever and the only means for US to strike back was to use the same weapon they already possess they would immediately and completely wipe out Iran without thinking twice. Our only luck is that such weapons are (now?) impossibility on intraplanetary scale, as even if we had such destructive power, there is no way it would also not destroy neighbours of the target and most likely also the attacker.
Game theory is actually pretty well suited to analyze this situation if done properly. It is exactly where game theory is useful. You require evidence of how other species behave. I do not need that to conclude that if OP's assumptions are correct (big if) that if the other species are rational agents the result is most likely as he describes. The problem is that if the weapon is undeflectable and prevents a second strike any possible alliances are unstable. In your example the best solution, as far as survival goes, for any species in your theoretical alliance is to immediately destroy the other members of the alliance before they do the same to them and colonize their planets if possible to increase the chance of survival.
The game might be more comlicated and maybe allow for some kind of alliance, but that is what OP was asking about. If you have some actual objection to his conclusion please show it. Your objection saying that alliances or cooperation might be the more likely outcome is not necessarily wrong, but you need to provide some argument other than your irrelevant one based on hypothetical psychology of the aliens. You need to show how and why. How would they overcome the absolute assymetricity between attack and defense. Why would they choose to join an alliance when their partners might be using it to just gain information about where to strike and there is no way to trust them until a lot of time has passed. You need to show that such a system can be stable. All this can be done using an assumption that they are somewhat rational agents, without knowing their actual psychology. Of course they might be completely irrational, but that is uninteresting scenario.
You are trying to base your analysis on some biological and psychological factors. They might be important or not. Problem is there are even more general rules that rational(as in trying to maximize their survival in this scenario) agents will obey. So if those civilizations can be assumed to be close to rational, they will behave a certain way and I need not to know much else.
Entire species will not think as I do as I would not destroy anyone even if in such a scenario, problem is states, civilizations, species "think" much more differently than individuals and as our own planet is an evidence, they "think" pretty closely to what is described.
|
On February 09 2012 06:54 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 06:39 HardlyNever wrote:On February 09 2012 06:24 mcc wrote:On February 09 2012 05:52 HardlyNever wrote:On February 09 2012 05:22 mcc wrote:On February 09 2012 01:52 HardlyNever wrote:
There are some huge issues with the OP, but the two that first came to mind are these:
1. Being a "destroy all other species" civilization is actually a terrible strategy for civilization survival, mainly because we live in an imperfect, and seemingly random universe. Which leads me to my second point.
2. You are using a model that is not only inconsistant, but largely contrary to the only model we know exists. That model is how humans behave on Earth. While I'm certainly willing to accept the possibility of species behaving differently than humans on Earth, to assume that they will automatically behave in an almost contrary fashion makes no sense. We are the only known sentient species, therefore, we have to assume that any behavior will be more like our own, not less like our own, because it is the only one we know to exist.
Tying those two points together sort of destroys your "game theory (why you call this game theory I have no clue, as it isn't related to game theory at all)." Let's say there are 3 nations on Earth. One of these nations behaves like the "destroy everything" civilization you describe. The other two do not (because not all humans want to destroy other civilizations, although some do). The two nations that do not behave that why, by chance, live much closer to each other and discover each other first, and decide to become friendly towards each other and participate in a mutually beneficial relationship. The "destroy all civilizations" species finds out about one of the friendly nations (the one closer to it) and decides to destroy it. However, because destroying entire civilizations can be difficult, they don't succeed (or they even could succeed, it doesn't matter). This lets the surviving "friendly" civilization know about the hostile one, and they take hostile action. Now you have a war, and it comes down to who destroys who first. Now lets say instead of two friendly nations, they are 10. You can add as many "hostile" nations to the equation as you want, because by your logic, they will never cooperate and only want to destroy all other civilizations.
While it is true some humans want to destroy other civilizations, it cannot be the overriding urge, otherwise there would only be one civilization in the world (which there isn't).
TL;DR Humans are the only known sentient species, so you have to assume other sentient species will behave in a similar fashion, because this is the only known way sentient species behave. While it is certainly possible that other species will behave in a way that isn't human-like, your "destroy all civilizations" behavior is one out of infinite possibilies, and one that will likely get that civilization destroyed by more cooperative civilizations.
Edit: You are also assuming all civilizations will be an equal distance away from each other, which makes no sense at all. If three friendly civilizations are all 10 light years away from each other, and the hostile civilization is 1000 light years away from any of them, the friendly nations could find out about each other, and communicate back and forth at least 50 times before the hostile civilization ever even found out about the friendly civilizations, much less divised a way to kill all 3 civilizations in one fell swoop with a device that is untracable and moves at the speed of light. You make WAY to many assumptions that MUST be perfect in order for your theory to have any relevance. Actually in case of your 2nd point prudent is to not assume anything considering small dataset. So no, assuming sentient beings are like us is as wrong as assuming they are different in specific way. While I agree the data set is small, scientifically there is no reason to believe that other sentient life will act in one specific way or another. At the very least, you could only say there are infinite, equally probable ways in which a sentient life form would behave. Why would they behave in a manner such as the OP mentioned? There is no scientific evidence to support an idea that they would behave that way. Additionally, despite the small data set, why would you ignore the one and only data point you had? Saying all sentient life will behave in a human-like way is a flawed theory, for sure, given the small amount of data, but it is the only scientifically supportable theory you could possibly make. You can either chose to a) ignore all evidence completely and open up the possibilities to infinity or b) acknowledge the small data set and construct a theory the best you can based on your single data point. Anything other than that makes no sense. Edit: I've chosen option B, but option A is also viable. The OP has chosen option C, which to say he chose 1 out of infinity possibilities, said "game theory" a couple of times, talked about the speed of light, and said we're all doomed. If his assumptions about effectivity of the weaponry were correct (which with current science they seem to be), the civilizations that survive would behave in such a way. There might have been civilizations that were not like that, but those are now statistically extinct. Even if you look at humans on Earth. We behave in some ways strikingly similarly to the civilizations he describes. Why are you assuming humans are counterexample ? And no it is not the only supportable scientific theory you can make. There are scientific theories and there is faulty inductive reasoning. This would be a case of faulty inductive reasoning. Humans are a counterexample because we don't destroy other civilizations upon first contact. We haven't done it here on Earth, and all of our deliberate attempts at interstellar communication have been peaceful. But you are assuming that some other species will premeditate that they will destroy all other species, without ever developing the means to communicate at light speed (radio waves), or send out any other signal that they exist, while simultaneously developing a method to detect said radio waves or other signals. Right... You're just plain wrong. I really don't know how else to say it. Give a scientifically supportable theory to determine how other sentient species behave based on evidence. I think we'll be here a while. There is also applying "game theory" to places that they don't belong. That is what this is. I'll give you one out of infinity scenarios that makes this just as likely as not. Species A is a species that behaves like the OP says. They detect species B, and decide they want to destroy species B. They sent an "RKV" to destroy the species and succeed. However, species B was actually part of a larger federation of species, which Species A did not detect, because they are further away, and their first and only response was to destroy anything on sight. The species that are part of the larger federation discover species A, and destroy it. Species A's civilization destroying days are over. That is one out of infinity possibilities, because there is now way to know how any other species or groups of species will behave. Claiming you know makes you look stupid. Thinking an entire species will think the (stupid) way you do, and will destroy all other species that think differently is dumb, and is only 1 of infinite possibilities. There really isn't anything else to say. If you can't see that, there is no helping you. I don't think you understand, if civilizations are not able to communicate as fast as they can potentially kill each other, there is no motivation for them to try to communicate. Thus the "groups" you mention would only be possible if they somehow could communicate much faster than the speed of light. The only rational thing left to do is to kill everyone in sight, or pray. For survival, the first option is just rationally and objectively better. Edit: its kinda like the scene in The Dark Knight, where the joker takes the two ships hostage and makes them play their little game. Except in this situation, it would be many ships
To expand on that it reminds me somewhat of multiple agent version of prisonner dilemma where double betrayal guarantees you much better result than only your "partner" betraying you. The only way from the prisonner dilemma is repetition and ability yo punish someone who reneges on the agreement. But in this scenario there is no repetition as the betrayed one is dead. Any alliance in such a scenario is unstable and stable situation is where civilizations try to kill each other as soon as possible.
Of course the game is more complex and thus there might be something that invalidates this conclusion, but it is for those who object to show that the complexity actually changes the game in such a degree as to avoid such outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
