Should we be telling aliens where we live?

[Grenartia]

duh

they can just look on a map

...A map that says that we're of fetal intelligence, relatively defenseless, and have lots of resources?

So, in other words, they've already scouted out our planet in order to put that info on a map?


God, I hope you're trolling.

What resources do we have, on this planet, that cannot be obtained for cheaper by simply mining asteroids or uninhabited planets?

Seriously, folks. There's only two advantages to obtaining resources from a world with native inhabitants more than willing to destroy themselves and their planet's habitability in self-defense, and that is if the planet either 1): has resources found nowhere else in the system, or 2): you need refined products, rather than raw materials. Based on the composition of Earth compared to asteroids and other bodies in our solar system, 1 is out the window (after all, there is a REASON they're callled Rare-Earth elements), and 2 is patently absurd for any interstellar-faring species.

To say nothing of the fact that its almost infinitely more expensive to drag mining equipment (and the ores, or, even if you have refining facilities on the planet, the refined materials) in and out of the gravity well of a planet as massive as Earth, than it is to simply get whatever you need from the nearest belt of lumpy rocks. That is physical fact. Nothing will ever change that.

[The Eastern Hegemony]

Some chilling examples of how technological advancement =/= social development:

1. Arguably, the most advanced nations in the 1930's and early 1940's were Hitler's Germany and Hirohito's Japan. We know how that worked out- just ask any Jew with Eastern European heritage.
2. The most complex brains of the animal world belong to predators, because more advanced brain processes are needed to hunt and kill things than are needed to run away from things hunting and killing you.
3. In the 1500s, the most advanced nations on Earth were the rapidly expanding European imperial powers. In just 300 years, the vibrant native cultures in the Americas were virtually wiped from existence. In the 1700s, the same happened in Australia with the British.
4. In the 1800s, the Americans heading west had shotguns, steel, and cannons, not to mention diseases that some Natives still hadn't been immunized to. The one thig nthey didn't have? Any compassion for the countless tribes slaughtered and/or moved into tinier and tinier 'reserves'- just like people today do with endangered animals.
5. You know how most of those animals became endangered? I'll give you a hint. It starts with a 'human', and ends with an '-ity'.
6. I just stepped on a spider without giving a crap about its life.
7. Last night, I ate a steak without giving a crap about the cow's life.
8. Last week, I sprayed some Poison Ivy without giving a crap about its life.
9. My dog is neutered- unwilling control of the population of a lesser race, anyone?
10. The Greeks considered anyone who didn't speak Greek a 'barbarian' and the Romans pretty much went to war with every civilization on mainland Europe that hadn't already forged bronze weapons- and they won.

You seem to be missing my point, which is that, as time goes on, and technologies get more and more capable of causing more and more destruction, any species which develops progressively more advanced technology will have to somehow cope with the fact that the average person can cause immense destruction, if that species has any desire to not go extinct.

In fact, rather than refuting my point, your first citation actually confirms it (whereas everything else is so blatantly ridiculous or so far removed from anything I'm referencing as to be irrelevant), in that there has been no super-destructive, super-deadly multinational war SINCE WWII. In fact, the entire raison d'etre of the Cold War was avoiding WWIII. I.E., we had so swiftly realized our own potential to swiftly and efficiently destroy one another, that we spent 45 or so years trying to avoid an outright war, if for no other reason than a sense of self-preservation.

Have you correctly identified the trend from the last 5000+ years of human history? Sure. But it has only been within the last century that we have developed the capacity to swiftly and efficiently murder each other to the point of near extinction. It has only been within the last 7 decades that we have created weapons of such enormous destructive potential that their very existence caused a paradigm shift in how nations deal with each other. It has been merely 30 years since we fully realized the ultimate destructive potential of large-scale exchanges of those weapons. Face it. The trend has changed, and has to continue to change if we are to avoid extinction. We have developed to the point where we are capable of understanding the consequences of our actions enough to realize that engaging in certain actions will almost certainly result in our own destruction. Neither the Greeks, nor the Romans, nor Europeans in their struggles with the Native Americans, cared about that (most likely because they had no reason to think about them).

Or, there could be one group, without any feelings for the innocents that would die, that's willing to suffer the massive casualties and clean up later. It could nuke the shit out of everyone else and rebuild slowly.

Or, a species could unite peacefully and then have a coup and become a predator race.

Also, remember how they might not even recognize us as intelligent, and could remove us as pests.

[Sanctissima]

I don't see why not.

Honestly, any alien civilization technologically advanced enough to get here wouldn't be interested in what we have. Resources wouldn't be an issue for them, and I doubt they'd want to enslave us since by developing the interstellar technology required to reach us they'd likely have also developed far more efficient AI servants or automatons.

There's very little chance of alien contact ending badly for us.

[Grenartia]

Yes because aliens would not be interested in our planet and even our solar system. All resources our planet provides are far more easily accessible elsewhere.

1. True, unless for some reason they've stuck with non-renewable resources and have devoured dozens of planets and are looking for something with life-based resources. Since planets with chlorophyll and life-essential proteins are probably at least moderately rare, they might come for those things.

2. Or maybe they have been bored in the centuries since the end of scarcity, and just like to hunt down lesser species.

1. The only way I could possibly conceive of needing those things is if petroleum is still a necessary resource, at which point, I have to wonder how such beings managed to get off their home rock in the first place. I mean, the only reason I could see petroleum being necessary is for plastics, and even then, there are infinitely better ways for interstellar species to make plastics than going "DRILL BABY DRILL" on every green planet they come across.

2. Actually, post-scarcity would effectively render aggression an inherently harmful trait quicker than incredibly destructive technology possibly could. Aggression inherently requires effort. Aggression inherently requires risk (however small). The only logical reasons to expend effort and assume risk, is for a gain. Post-scarcity economies are effectively much gain for absolutely minimal risk and minimal effort. So minimal, in fact, that you expend more effort and assume more risk by being aggressive. After all, why "hunt down lesser species" (for whatever reason), when you can get the same effect by, say, simulating hunting them down?

[Grenartia]

What if said aliens turn out to be galactic horrors? Isn't there a directive in Star Trek that forbids giving out Earth's location?

Not a major one. The Prime Directive forbids revealing technology more advanced than that of a pre-warp species, or revealing that extraterrestrial life exists. This is to prevent social turmoil on undeveloped planets. The Directive also bans altering the path and development of a pre-warp species, even when said species is going to go extinct without aid, except in the most dire of circumstances, like a Borg threat or something endangering the entire quadrant or the entire galaxy. Even then, the Directive is rarely breached.

But no, I can't think of a major one banning broadcasting Earth's location. Ambassadors to brand-new warp-capable friendly species do it all the time.

I think Tierra Prime is thinking of Starship Troopers: the Video Game Halo.

[Grenartia]

Not a major one. The Prime Directive forbids revealing technology more advanced than that of a pre-warp species, or revealing that extraterrestrial life exists. This is to prevent social turmoil on undeveloped planets. The Directive also bans altering the path and development of a pre-warp species, even when said species is going to go extinct without aid, except in the most dire of circumstances, like a Borg threat or something endangering the entire quadrant or the entire galaxy. Even then, the Directive is rarely breached.

But no, I can't think of a major one banning broadcasting Earth's location. Ambassadors to brand-new warp-capable friendly species do it all the time.

Must have been another sci-fi then. Actually, it was probably Stargate.

I'm actually intimately familiar with Stargate's canon. Its not Stargate. FFS, the very first episode involves the signature bad guy for the first half of the first show's run, sending his troops into the American base and kidnapping somebody.

Its definitely Halo.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Must have been another sci-fi then. Actually, it was probably Stargate.

I'm actually intimately familiar with Stargate's canon. Its not Stargate. FFS, the very first episode involves the signature bad guy for the first half of the first show's run, sending his troops into the American base and kidnapping somebody.

Its definitely Halo.

Yeah it is, the Cole Protocol to be specific.

[Grenartia]

I don't think that saying "fuck yeah" will suffice for planetary defence.

It will take light years for them to come, we will be ready

[Gim]

It will take light years for them to come, we will be ready

Pokemon picture...priceless.

[Grenartia]

You seem to be missing my point, which is that, as time goes on, and technologies get more and more capable of causing more and more destruction, any species which develops progressively more advanced technology will have to somehow cope with the fact that the average person can cause immense destruction, if that species has any desire to not go extinct.

In fact, rather than refuting my point, your first citation actually confirms it (whereas everything else is so blatantly ridiculous or so far removed from anything I'm referencing as to be irrelevant), in that there has been no super-destructive, super-deadly multinational war SINCE WWII. In fact, the entire raison d'etre of the Cold War was avoiding WWIII. I.E., we had so swiftly realized our own potential to swiftly and efficiently destroy one another, that we spent 45 or so years trying to avoid an outright war, if for no other reason than a sense of self-preservation.

Have you correctly identified the trend from the last 5000+ years of human history? Sure. But it has only been within the last century that we have developed the capacity to swiftly and efficiently murder each other to the point of near extinction. It has only been within the last 7 decades that we have created weapons of such enormous destructive potential that their very existence caused a paradigm shift in how nations deal with each other. It has been merely 30 years since we fully realized the ultimate destructive potential of large-scale exchanges of those weapons. Face it. The trend has changed, and has to continue to change if we are to avoid extinction. We have developed to the point where we are capable of understanding the consequences of our actions enough to realize that engaging in certain actions will almost certainly result in our own destruction. Neither the Greeks, nor the Romans, nor Europeans in their struggles with the Native Americans, cared about that (most likely because they had no reason to think about them).

Or, there could be one group, without any feelings for the innocents that would die, 1. that's willing to suffer the massive casualties and clean up later. 2. It could nuke the shit out of everyone else and rebuild slowly.

3. Or, a species could unite peacefully and then have a coup and become a predator race.

4. Also, remember how they might not even recognize us as intelligent, and could remove us as pests.

1. Massive casualties that would severely negatively impact growth and development, severely bottlenecking the human gene pool (and thus, limiting genetic diversity, and by extension, the ability to adapt to various changes in living conditions, which is inherently a bad thing from an evolutionary point of view), etc.

2. Rebuilding slowly, because of course, they've nearly extinguished the human race. Self destruction is an inherently negative evolutionary trait.

3. In order to unite peacefully, the aggressive traits that would influence the motivations of those conducting the coup would be fairly heavily selected against, evolutionarily speaking.

4. I have serious doubts that advanced species judge intelligence in relation to themselves. Its such an objectively shitty (and, in terms of theoretical galactic politics, counterproductive) way to go about doing things, that there has to be an objective, rather than subjective, determination of intelligence. Short of any other alternatives, the mirror test seems to be the best objective test of intelligence, and I would be surprised to hear if any discovered species does not use that test, or a variant of it.

[Grenartia]

I'm actually intimately familiar with Stargate's canon. Its not Stargate. FFS, the very first episode involves the signature bad guy for the first half of the first show's run, sending his troops into the American base and kidnapping somebody.

Its definitely Halo.

Yeah it is, the Cole Protocol to be specific.

Thank you. I could not for the life of me, remember the name of it.

[Claven]

Couldn't hurt trying eh?

And I sunscribe to the belief that life on earth came from some meteor (meteorite? Or is that when a meteor is crashing toward earth? Or are meteors asteoids crashing towards earth?). So the chances of us being able to mate ain't that remote, though quite tiny I admit

Even if it did originate from an impact event, the odds of us being even the tiniest bit related to any life from beyond the Solar System are so low that they probably don't have prefixes for the numbers you'd need to express them. And even if we are related to ET, look at life on Earth that we're sure has a shared ancestor—humans and chimpanzees (also, bonobos) have a genetic structure upwards of 98% identical but still can't produce hybrid offspring.

Fine, just wanted to say that I would bang an alien

[Wisconsin9]

Even if it did originate from an impact event, the odds of us being even the tiniest bit related to any life from beyond the Solar System are so low that they probably don't have prefixes for the numbers you'd need to express them. And even if we are related to ET, look at life on Earth that we're sure has a shared ancestor—humans and chimpanzees (also, bonobos) have a genetic structure upwards of 98% identical but still can't produce hybrid offspring.

Fine, just wanted to say that I would bang an alien

If they're OK with it and they've got a hole, sure, go for it.

[Kanaria]

No. Contacting alien life is far, far too dangerous- the rational thing, upon making contact with aliens of unknown motivation and tech level, is to exterminate them because they might be able to do the same to us, and are likely having the same conversation.
Besides, aliens lack a rational soul and, if sentient, are therefore abominations.

PURGE THE XENOS
THE EMPEROR PROTECTS

[Hugdom]

Sure, it'd be cool.

[Kraylandia]

But do they exist?

[Immoren]

But do they exist?

Do you exist?

[Kraylandia]

But do they exist?

Do you exist?

No.

[Hallistar]

I mean atleast if we get invaded by aliens, ISIL will have a different target to attack.

[Gim]

Sure, it'd be cool.

I disagree, because we never known if aliens are beneficial or harmful to us.

[Nickel Empire]

Have you seen how horrible humans are? It is probably why aliens haven't visited us yet.

[Tafhan]

Yeah. Maybe they can help us out. but I wouldn't count on it being a high priority plan.

[A Colony Of Canadas]

Chances are if they come here, it won't be to just say hello. They may be friendly, but I wouldn't put my money on it.

[The Eastern Hegemony]

Meh, even if they're benign, the differences between us may be so much that they would kill us inadvertently or through fear, or alter us without knowing we're life.