# Stephen Hawking says beware intelligent aliens.



## Urien (Apr 26, 2010)

"Our weapons are useless" is often the Earthers' cry when faced with hostile intelligent aliens. In the following article in the Times Stephen Hawking reckons aliens are out there but we should be wary of inviting a smart ET home to tea. He likens it to Europeans landing in North America in the 15th century.


Don&rsquo;t talk to aliens, warns Stephen Hawking - Times Online


Is it likely a species more advanced than us would want to mistreat or colonise us? It's impossible to know; we as a species (in my view) are becoming steadily more enlightened. However, with a different species (alien and therefore unknowable) their advancement might lead them to believe... 

"See those stars Zog'wi'haf?" 
"Yep Darg'therat." 
"Time to colour them therelian."


----------



## chopper (Apr 26, 2010)

Cautiously going where no man etc etc etc


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 26, 2010)

"Don't talk to aliens?"


When they've arrived in their great big, unbelievably advanced and powerful star ship, what else would one do but talk? Make rude gestures? Moon at them?


(And if they are just moving from world to world, strip-mining them as they go, they won't need us to tell them our world's here to be stripped: they'll already be on their way if they're coming this way at all.)


----------



## Urien (Apr 26, 2010)

Aliens in giant space ships? No problem... I'd just use an ipad to upload a virus into their primative computer. Job done.


----------



## Moonbat (Apr 26, 2010)

It is a tricky one, how to measure the benevolence of a yet unknown species far more advanced than ourselves. Some of us would no doubt want to resort to violence at the start, a pre-emptive strike, you may as well not take the risk that they might be peaceful and strike first. If they are peaceful they might forgive us if we did Nuke them as soon as they arrived, on the other hand if they aren't peaceful then we've just saved ourselves a load of bother.

Hmmm.

If Aliens were to land they would be so much more advanced than us that our weapons (even a nuclear strike or an EMP) would be useless against them, if they wanted to conquer us they could, any effort to fight would be futile, on the otherhand if they only wanted to help us or trade in materials and/or knowledge then what better way to start than to teach them a lesson in humanity. Shoot first and ask questions later.

It seems like a pointless thing to say from Hawking, as Ursa said if Aliens did visit us we would talk to them rather than just ignore them. If they weren't interested in talking then what does it matter.


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 26, 2010)

We could always sell them the Moon and use the money to tide us over if they decided to take it with them....


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Apr 26, 2010)

Offer them a nice cup of tea. That always works.


----------



## HareBrain (Apr 26, 2010)

If the aliens had been picking up any Eastenders transmissions, it's likely they'd exterminate us to put us out of our misery.


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 26, 2010)

I forgot!


If they landed here in the UK, wouldn't they have to be have ID cards?

So in addition to:


> ● The _National Identity Card_, which is lilac and salmon in colour, is issued to British citizens only. It contains the text "British Citizen" and is a valid travel document for entry into any EEA state and Switzerland (see below for others).
> 
> ● The _Identification Card_, which is turquoise and green in colour and does not mention the holder's nationality, is issued to EU, EEA and Swiss citizens living in the UK (including Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland). It is also issued to certain family members of EU/EEA citizens, to British citizens to whom certain conditions or restrictions apply, and as an additional card to a person living in two gender roles.
> 
> ● The _Identity Card for Foreign Nationals_, which is blue and pink in colour, is issued to certain categories of immigrants from non-EU/EEA countries.


we'd have to invent a new one. And we can't choose the colours yet, in case the newcomers find them offensive.

Administratively, this could turn out to be a real disaster.


----------



## skeptical (Apr 26, 2010)

Hawking is working from the fact that we have no data on aliens.   So aliens might be friendly, or they might not.  We simply do not know.

A big question is the Fermi Paradox.
Fermi paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically, this says, "_Where the hell are those aliens?"_
After all, over the time period aliens might evolve and thrive - billions of years - even at sub-light speeds, there is plenty of time for an alien species to over-run the Milky Way galaxy.

It may be that aliens are so rare that it never happened.  However, another possible explanation is that aliens are utterly hostile and have routinely, every few million years, travelled round the galaxy wiping out any and all intelligent life other than themselves.

Quite simply, we do not know.   We haven't got a freakin' clue!

It is unlikely to the point of almost impossible, that an alien species will detect our presense through our radio and TV broadcasts, since the energy density of those radio waves, after a few light years, will be so miniscule that it would take an aerial half the size of our solar system even to detect them.    A strong beamed signal is a different story.   There are lots of people who want to beam messages of good will out into the galaxy, and make contact.   Hawking is warning, quite rightly, that this is a very, very stupid idea!


----------



## jojajihisc (Apr 27, 2010)

skeptical said:


> A big question is the Fermi Paradox.
> Fermi paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Basically, this says, "_Where the hell are those aliens?"_
> After all, over the time period aliens might evolve and thrive - billions of years - even at sub-light speeds, there is plenty of time for an alien species to over-run the Milky Way galaxy.



Even at light speed, and the physical limitations that go along with accomplishing that, the distances are just too overwhelming. Not to mention distances in time. Over four years from the nearest star system? Let alone traveling at whatever percentage of light speed. Separation by both distance and position in time makes contact with aliens seem remote.


----------



## Vladd67 (Apr 27, 2010)

It all boils down to one question
Vulcans or Romulans?


----------



## Boneman (Apr 27, 2010)

Stephen Hawking is an Intelligent Alien, and (ouch) look how difficult it is to talk to him... that's really mean... but I couldn't resist.... must be in a bad mood... maybe the mods should remove it...!


----------



## skeptical (Apr 27, 2010)

joja

Assuming a speed between stars of 0.1c, and acceleration/deceleration of 10 years from zip to that velocity, it is possible to travel between Earth and Alpha Centauri in 55 years.  The whole galaxy would be visitable within 700,000 years.   This time period is minimal compared to the 6 to 8 billion years our galaxy has been in existence.  When you are talking of what a whole species can do, rather than individuals, those time periods are quite possible.


----------



## Dave (Apr 27, 2010)

Setting aside the Fermi Paradox for a moment - maybe the aliens appear out of some wormhole from the far side of the Universe, another Universe, or some past or future time.

Also setting aside the fact that they will know everything about us from watching TV broadcasts - East Enders, Jeremy Kyle, and Jerry Springer - in which case they will probably invite us to a home-cooked dinner, make suggestions on improving our houses and gardens, audition for an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical and then ask us out for a date!

I think we are in danger of imposing our own characteristics on them. It is us that are the aggressive, blood-thirsty imperialists. We have no idea if they would have long ago outgrown such expansionist systems of colonisation, or whether they even ever had them at all. They could well just be coming for a cup of tea (or a three course meal with points out of ten.)

It is US they need to be worried about. We kill Dolphins. We kill Chimpanzees. Just look at Urien - he's already planning to down their spacecraft with his uploaded ipad computer virus before they have even arrived!


----------



## J-WO (Apr 27, 2010)

Then there's always the possibility that an intelligent species eventually creates technology far more interesting than the universe around it. Could it be no ones contacted us because they have virtual realities that far exceed anything reality offers? A somewhat depressing thought but there it is.


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 27, 2010)

As long as they don't see the Matrix and assume that human bodies are somehow perfect for powering VR systems.


----------



## jojajihisc (Apr 28, 2010)

skeptical said:


> joja
> 
> Assuming a speed between stars of 0.1c, and acceleration/deceleration of 10 years from zip to that velocity, it is possible to travel between Earth and Alpha Centauri in 55 years.  The whole galaxy would be visitable within 700,000 years.   This time period is minimal compared to the 6 to 8 billion years our galaxy has been in existence.  When you are talking of what a whole species can do, rather than individuals, those time periods are quite possible.



If one could achieve such a velocity and then overcome the myriad other problems space travel presents then, yes, it is possible. 700,000 years does seem small compared to stellar time scales, but for human civilization, which has only made a bit more than 1/100 of that, it is an enormous amount of time. There's just too many leaps of faith for me given present levels of technology and the relatively delicate nature of intelligent life for space travel. But I do hope we make it another 680,000+ years!


----------



## skeptical (Apr 28, 2010)

joja

Just indulging in a bit of speculation.

There is no reason in theory why an interstellar probe should not be 'manned' by computers and robots fully capable of surviving 700,000 years or more.  After all, for most of that time period they will be essentially shut down.

Such a probe fired at the opposite end of the Milky Way could carry frozen embryos.   On arrival, the robots thaw them, incubate them, and then educate the new offspring.  Obviously I am talking of an advanced technology.  However, it is entirely possible that humans will be able to do that within 1,000 years.

A time period of 700,000 years is pretty much without meaning, when those who travel are not actually 'born' until arrival.


----------



## jojajihisc (Apr 28, 2010)

I have to admit I wasn't considering unmanned probes, robots and cryogenic technology. And that's a fair point. Perhaps once the singularity occurs that could even be us that does it. And if Vernor Vinge is right it might very well be in this century!


----------



## HareBrain (Apr 28, 2010)

skeptical said:


> Such a probe fired at the opposite end of the Milky Way could carry frozen embryos. On arrival, the robots thaw them, incubate them, and then educate the new offspring. Obviously I am talking of an advanced technology. However, it is entirely possible that humans will be able to do that within 1,000 years.


 
Does anyone know of an SF story that has this as its central idea?


----------



## chrispenycate (Apr 28, 2010)

The basic problem is not whether they are benevolent or aggressive, it is that when one culture comes into contact with another, it is changed, and historically, cultures with inferior technology were destroyed. The missionary seeking to save souls, the trader only interested in profit, and the would-be noble looking to carve himself out a kingdom might have very different motives, but a few decades down the line the result is the same; anthropologists trying to analyse from the ageing details of their original lifestyles and philosophies.

With distances between the stars I doubt whether they could conquer, or there would be anything but knowledge that it would be economic to trade; but they could still destroy humanity as we know it (and would that be so bad a thing, I hear you ask? That's not entirely the point) without the slightest malevolence.


----------



## JDP (Apr 28, 2010)

Would the Earth's meagre resources even be worth the effort of travelling lightyears to harvest?

And why would such advanced aliens even need to come in person? I think the assumption that physical travel is necessary is a little parochial  They could be surveilling every facet of our lives from the comfortable sulphur flats of Khrrykktibynyckusstys Prime using advanced technology that is indistinguishable from magic to us mere humans. Contact in-person (or even ex machina) would be a little déclassé for the Khrrykktibynyckusstysians, believe you me; they're a snooty bunch.

Perhaps they could wipe us out at any given moment with the push of a button (or even with just a thought?). But don't worry, just make yourself a hat out of aluminium foil like mine, and at least their mind-control beams won't get you.


----------



## skeptical (Apr 28, 2010)

There is an obvious resource to harvest from Earth.   DNA.

Biological resources may be the vital material.   To take a little nucleic acid from each and every species on Earth would require little in the way of mass to transport.  Yet their value might be a billion times greater than gold.

The biggest thing, though, in this discussion is the depth of our ignorance.  We simply have no idea of what our hypothetical alien species might be like.   Beneficent or malevolent?   We do not know.


----------



## AE35Unit (Apr 28, 2010)

And I say dont worry folks, the distances involved are too much to make the threat a valid one!


----------



## Parson (Apr 28, 2010)

HareBrain said:


> Does anyone know of an SF story that has this as its central idea?



We were just dealing with this on the book finder thread. Hogan's "Voyage from Yesteryear" uses this idea as one way of crossing interstellar distances, but the real "story" has much more to do with sociology and psychology than technology. 

(I'm thinking in alliteration here )


----------



## Moonbat (Apr 28, 2010)

I think one of the problems with this (fermi paradox) theory is that it hasn't taken into account the 4.6 billion years it took for intelligent life to evolve here on planet Earth. Saying we only need another 680'000 years to span the galaxy is also asuming that we will last that long, other species existed on this earth for longer than we have and did not reach a state of intelligence, so regardless of the amount of time involved there is also the delicate nature of evolution to factor in.

If modern society is any kind of example (and I wager that it isn't) the more developed a country the slower its population increases until (as with many Western nations) the internal population is no longer increasing. If you extrapolate this to the 'Aliens' then there is a perfect chance that they are not going to expand indefintiely across the stars but rather find a nice little corner and settle down into a prolonged comfortable existance.
Obviously there are flaws with my argument, evolution of the 'aliens' for example might require extraterrestrial DNA to keep things moving, either that or extreme enviromental pressures.


----------



## HareBrain (Apr 28, 2010)

Parson said:


> We were just dealing with this on the book finder thread. Hogan's "Voyage from Yesteryear" uses this idea as one way of crossing interstellar distances, but the real "story" has much more to do with sociology and psychology than technology.
> 
> (I'm thinking in alliteration here )


 
Thanks, Parson -- a friend has started writing a story with exactly that set-up, so I'll get him to take a look.


----------



## Parson (Apr 28, 2010)

Moonbat said:


> I think one of the problems with this (fermi paradox) theory is that it hasn't taken into account the 4.6 billion years it took for intelligent life to evolve here on planet Earth. Saying we only need another 680'000 years to span the galaxy is also asuming that we will last that long, other species existed on this earth for longer than we have and did not reach a state of intelligence, so regardless of the amount of time involved there is also the delicate nature of evolution to factor in.



This has always been the flaw that I've seen in the Femi paradox as well. On the other hand we are making the rather major assumption that we are something like average in the time it takes for intelligence to develop. 
Which might not be true. If one assumes that evolution on the macro scale develops along a bell shaped continuum, it is a good bet to be in the middle third. But with no other examples to compare our evolutionary development to, it is by no means a sure bet. 

I think a better bet is that if there are technically advanced aliens, they will *at least* have a history of competing successfully, and likely violently, at one time of the other. So, as Hawking says, we should tread carefully in this area.


----------



## skeptical (Apr 28, 2010)

To moonbat and parson
About this 'flaw' in the Fermi Paradox.....

You should note that 10% of the star systems in our Milky Way galaxy are 2 billion plus years older than ours. If it took 4.5 billion years for intelligent life to evolve on Earth, and if that is typical, then on 10% of the life bearing planets, that intelligent life evolved 2 billion years ago. Plenty of time.....


----------



## jojajihisc (Apr 29, 2010)

But why would a planet capable of supporting life necessarily yield intelligent life?


----------



## skeptical (Apr 29, 2010)

Further to my comment about 10% of the galaxy ....

This adds up to about 20 billion star systems. If life is found on one planet in every one million star systems, that is 20,000 star systems with life, and 2 billion years plus older than Earth. 

If one in a thousand star systems with life evolve intelligent life, that adds up to 20 intelligent species with a 2 billion plus years head start on Earth.

Of course, my numbers may be totally wrong. Add a zero to both numbers, and there is a very good chance that there is no intelligent life in our galaxy except Earth life.


----------



## Parson (Apr 29, 2010)

skeptical said:


> Further to my comment about 10% of the galaxy ....
> 
> This adds up to about 20 billion star systems. If life is found on one planet in every one million star systems, that is 20,000 star systems with life, and 2 billion years plus older than Earth.
> 
> ...



As much as it pains me, this is what I think. No intelligent life in our galaxy except for humanity, and we basically waste the precious gift.


----------



## Moonbat (Apr 29, 2010)

Skeptical, 
There are many more contributing factors to intelligent life evolving on Earth, there would need to be a planet the size of Jupiter to protect the Earth like planet from ateroid impacts, and even then it seems like asteroids come along fairly frequently and wipe everything out. So 2 billion extra years doesn't really count for much if the window of opportunity (to evolve intelligence) is shortened significantly by other external influences.

I think intelligent life may well have evolved but that to expect to see evidence of it from all the way out here is wishful thinking. The idea behind Fermi's paradox is based on large numbers and the expectation that life evolving isn't too tricky, nor intelligent life evolving, nor technological capabilities being reached quickly enough to allow galaxy wide migration. there are alot of factors that we have no way of analysing except for our own experienced, and that is hardly a good way to begin a statistical analyses.


----------



## skeptical (Apr 29, 2010)

Actually, I agree with Parson that intelligent life is probably very, very rare.

The thing really is the sheer lack of data that we have to make deductions from.   The numbers usually quoted are enormous, and if life is common, then it follows that highly evolved (hence intelligent) life would also be numerous in our galaxy.   It is the word 'if' that we must remember....

However, back to the OP, I agree with Hawking that we should not be sending out invitations to potential visitors from elsewhere in our galaxy.  Just as we have no data on numbers of life bearing worlds, we also have no data on what any hypothetical intelligent species might be like.   It might be both xenophobic and genocidal.

On the other hand, they might be utopians who would just love to share their wonderful gifts with us, but is it worth taking that risk?

The probability of any probe or signal from Earth actually reaching an intelligent species is rather small.   But it  still seems a very unwise thing to do, sending a signal, and tempting fate.


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 29, 2010)

If the aliens see our TV tranmissions, they'll suspect strongly that there's little or no intelligent life on Earth.

But Earth could still be made into an SSSI**, so it isn't definite that we'd be wiped out.







** - a Site of Special Scientific Interest.


----------



## Urien (Apr 29, 2010)

No the aliens will put us on trial first; then they'll find us guilty of being beastly to one another. The sentence of course will be death for humanity, after all xenocide reflects a merciful, enlightened and benevolent nature.

I never did get the logic of those shows.


----------



## Dave (Apr 29, 2010)

I'm still not happy about the "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later" attitude promoted here. If the aliens also have this same attitude then 'Intelligent Life' does not deserve to survive because it will have been proven not to be very intelligent. However, hiding ourselves and monitoring for them instead is a plan that will only work if they don't have the same idea themselves.

On the subject of picking up TV and Radio broadcasts from Space. There may only be a short window to catch those of a few hundred years while technology moves from broadcasts of long wave to narrow cast direct short wave and wired internet based TV.


----------



## Moonbat (Apr 29, 2010)

In some senses 'shoot first and ask questions later' *is* the intelligent response. If (the use of the word 'if' suggests there is a chance) there is a chance that they are going to attack then shooting first would be prudent in terms of survival, not sure about asking questions of a dead alien, but a beaten and surrendered Alien could still answer questions.

Violence in nature is common and they say it is a dog eat dog world, so maybe any aliens that we encounter would be violent xenophobic monsters. If peace is the result of an enlightened populace then maybe when we have found peace (becomed enlightened) we will realise that agressive expansion isn't required. Not sure if scientific exploration would suffer the same fate. But then truly benevolent scientific exploration would be as non-invasive as possible so maybe we just havne't caught the robotic alien scientist taking small samples of our population


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 29, 2010)

With regard to intelligence, don't forget to factor in that we are a species testing for the effect of our anatomy on the likelihood of earthquakes.


----------



## Urien (Apr 29, 2010)

It's certainly possible that technologically advanced aliens might find conquering and/or exterminating other species a logical and reasonable course of action.

We extrapolate from our own experience, that over time we have become in aggregate less warlike/repressive/brutal. Now we would likely hold out the hand of peace and cooperation to any discovered sentients.

However, we wouldn't want to meet Asher's Prador, Hamilton's Primes or Bank's Affront. I think the logic behind the Prime's action was perhaps the most convincing.

Beware of what you wish for. Hope to meet the Federation...


----------



## HareBrain (Apr 29, 2010)

My view is that any species that develops advanced technology has a fairly short window in which to evolve out of its animal-based aggressive habits before it destroys itself or its environment. So any species that has achieved true interstellar capability would, I believe, very likely be "enlightened".


----------



## Parson (Apr 29, 2010)

HareBrain said:


> My view is that any species that develops advanced technology has a fairly short window in which to evolve out of its animal-based aggressive habits before it destroys itself or its environment. So any species that has achieved true interstellar capability would, I believe, very likely be "enlightened".



Or they captured it from an enlightened species. Or they achieved a scientific kismet and viola. Or the prevalent view of their culture is that only creatures with smurlifizmnd can possibly be intelligent. (and on and on the possibilities go.)


----------



## skeptical (Apr 29, 2010)

The basic problem is that we do not know.   We can talk all we like about the options, and whether aliens are enlightened or xenophobes.   We simply do not know.

One thing that is predictable, is that aliens will be, well....  alien! 

We are talking of a species that came into existence elsewhere and evolved totally without contact with Earth.  We are more closely related to a tapeworm.  How the alien evolved is totally unpredictable.   They might be angels or devils. 

One thing I predict, they will not be like the blue 9 foot high skinny natives in Avatar.   They will be totally unhuman.


----------



## Moonbat (Apr 29, 2010)

> They will be totally unhuman.


 

Sadly we don't even know this.


----------



## Dave (Apr 30, 2010)

Moonbat said:


> Sadly we don't even know this.


True.

It really depends on how rare life is. If 'Life' is really very unusual in the Universe, any other life would also be based on Carbon chain chemistry and water as a solvent. That means DNA is the most likely method of replication, (whether or not you believe in Panspermia.) Intelligent life would most likely also have developed binocular vision, hands with opposable thumbs and bipedal walking. So they may be blue, green or grey, and they may have scales or feathers or something weird and alien, but by the process of convergent evolution (by which both Birds and Bats independently have Wings) they are likely to look similar to us. And to defeat my earlier argument, they probably would be just as aggressive as us too.

If life is very common, there could be all kinds of life. Life based on Silicon (the Horta from Star Trek.) Life based on Ammonia as a solvent on cold worlds. And all kinds of Life, not as we know it! - 'beings of pure energy' etc. etc.


----------



## skeptical (Apr 30, 2010)

In the Star Wars series of movies, there was only one alien I thought was convincing.   Jabba the Hutt.  And he was convincing only because he was so different.

An alien might be a sea dweller, closer to a squid than a human, or even to a slug.   Or it might be like a balloon floating through the air.  It might even have evolved in a gas cloud in space, and be more like a cloud than an animal.   Ever read Fred Hoyle's  "_The Black Cloud_"?

Stuff convergent evolution.   There is no reason to believe it will be anything like humans at all.  If it has legs, it might have 2 or 200.   It may have any number of eyes, or no eyes at all.  After all, dolphins get along extremely well in water so turbid they cannot use their eyes, and rely on sound.  Or maybe they sense electric fields.   Or imagine a giant space dweller than detects gravity waves.

We do not know, and speculation really does not help that lack of understanding.


----------



## jojajihisc (Apr 30, 2010)

That's true, speculation does not help that understanding nor is it meant to. It's meant to entertain.

The Hawking interview, from the sound of it in the article that is linked, sounds like he should be trolling around this forum. I think he's a fan. 

I don't know how many times the old "aliens-raid-the-planet-for-its-resources-because-they've-already-exhausted-their-planet's-resources" story has turned up but I think it's a lot. Those profligate aliens. That aliens could exist inside of stars sounds like Kevin J. Anderson's *Saga of the Seven Suns*. In that series they are known as the "faeros", of course. There might also be, according to Hawking, Anderson et. al., "hydrogues" lurking in the high atmospheric pressures of Jupiter, and "wentals" swimming around in hydrocarbon seas on Titan (and if that's the case then Hawking is too late and they already know we're here. See: Cassini Mission).

Also, if the Christopher Columbus analogy is an accurate one shouldn't we want to be the ones out exploring in hopes of finding the aliens before they find us first? Because apparently it's that simple: be the ones who do the discovering.


----------



## Scifi fan (Apr 30, 2010)

I have a different problem. 

Astronomers and physicists aren't trained in world history, political science, or international relations, and they make a lot of ignorant comments about current affairs. 

But they are not alone. Professors of international relations have also gotten it very wrong about the world. in the 1970's, Kissinger wanted detente with the Soviet Union (remember the hammer and sickle?) modelled after the Congress of Vienna, but detente collapsed after Nixon left (or was driven from) office, and, a decade after that, the Warsaw Pact collapsed, followed by the Soviet Union a few years later. If Kissinger had known that, he would have done as Reagan did - ie, run the enemy into the ground and not negotiate. 

And, during the time of Reagan, the scholars were talking of how Japan was going to take over the US in economic strength, and how the Asian Century had dawned. I was one of the minority who said otherwise, and I thought that the American era would continue well into the 21st Century. 

I was right, of course, and I am still right. But neither I nor any scholar ever thought that the Soviet Union would shrivel overnight, and even a free-market enthusiast like me did not realize how capitalism would become the accepted paradigm all over the world, even among professors of political science. 

So the track record of social scientists and the students of social scientists is not very good. And, if they cannot get it right, how much less can physicists and astronomers? And, if it's so hard to understand human relations, how much harder must it be to understand how star-faring aliens think? 

So, when Stephen Hawkings talks of how aliens can come and conquer us, I wonder how accurate that is. Would gorillas in a nature preserve really understand how modern humans think?


----------



## skeptical (Apr 30, 2010)

scififan

Did you miss the point?

We have been emphasizing the fact that we cannot know.   Aliens, if they exist, are a complete question mark.  Anything might happen.


----------



## Urien (Apr 30, 2010)

Skeptical,

Precisely anything might happen; but we act as if only the benevolent versions of aliens might happen. Hence SETI, broadcasts and even nice little diagrams and maps on the Voyagers, which in the wrong hands/paws/tentacles might as well say EAT HERE.

The logical (and dull) position is it seems to keep our collective heads down and hope that we don't attract any attention, given that death and slavery trumps "The nice aliens brought us a cure for cancer".


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Apr 30, 2010)

In today's Grauniad:

Is Stephen Hawking right about aliens? | Science | The Guardian


----------



## Dave (Apr 30, 2010)

Seth Shostak is right, the argument is dead anyway, it is already to late to stop broadcasting to them if they are out there.

If we really want to keep them away, keep showing TV and films showing them how hostile we are, and the News reports that emphasise the fact the Influenza, Ebola and HIV pandemics are only a few years away. That would work for me.


----------



## Scifi fan (Apr 30, 2010)

skeptical said:


> scififan
> 
> Did you miss the point?
> 
> We have been emphasizing the fact that we cannot know.   Aliens, if they exist, are a complete question mark.  Anything might happen.



I just said it in a different way.


----------



## skeptical (Apr 30, 2010)

Dave

I am sorry, but your fatalistic argument does not stack up.

Our television and radio transmissions are very low power.   By the time we look a few light years away from Earth, they have dissipated to the point where, as I said before, you would need an antenna half the size of our solar system just to detect them.  By the time you get to, say, 20 light years away, even this becomes impossible.

Our radio and TV transmissions will not be picked up by hypothetical aliens.   However, a high powered, and beamed transmission might.  Such a transmission will punch through much greater distances.  These have not been sent, but a whole lot of very naive scientists want to send them, under the ridiculous assumption that any alien receiving them has gotta be friendly!

Personally, I think it is very low probability that even a high power, beamed transmission will ever be received by aliens, but I still think we would be much wiser not to send any.


----------



## Starbeast (May 7, 2010)

Urien said:


> Stephen Hawking reckons aliens are out there but we should be wary of inviting a smart ET home to tea. He likens it to Europeans landing in North America in the 15th century.


 

To me it sounds like Mr Hawkings knows something and he is hinting at the truth.


----------



## Boneman (May 7, 2010)

But does it mean we should talk to stupid aliens? (convince them of the merits of Timeshare..?). As Calvin so convincingly said: "The surest sign that there is intelligent life in the Universe, is that none of it has visited here".


----------



## Rosemary (May 7, 2010)

That you know of, Boneman!  Who's to say aliens have been among us for a long long time?

If they looked like us, no one would know.  Just because we haven't seen any unusual looking green skinned aliens, doesn't mean to say there are none.

I myself just can't agree with all the money spent trying to get in touch with aliens.


----------



## Chinook (Jun 3, 2010)

I know I'm a bit late on the draw for this one, but I was kind of busy, and I was catching up when this thread caught my eye. 

I would like to note that most, if not all of the members posting in this thread seem to believe that "intelligence" is commensurate with sentience. Is that an accepted fact? I'm not sure. Intelligence as a concept may well be relative. Therefore is it possible that anything that can "think" is intelligent? 

Here is a quote from Wiki: 


> Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person’s intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of “intelligence” are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions.


 
So I say "intelligence" is relative. Here is a thought: What if the Universe _is_ Intelligence?  http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/#cite_note-Neisser1998-2


----------



## J-WO (Jun 4, 2010)

I think we need a wider set of words in this area. We're limited by language here.


----------



## Urien (Jun 4, 2010)

Alien baaad. Human gooood.


----------



## J-WO (Jun 4, 2010)

Urien said:


> Alien baaad. Human gooood.



Now there's a message we probably shouldn't broadcast.


----------



## Urien (Jun 4, 2010)

We already have. Complete with little butchers diagrams of the best cuts...






"Hello we're humans. Don't we look tasty?"

From the Pioneer spacecraft.


----------



## J-WO (Jun 5, 2010)

Ever read a 2000ad short where the aliens who discover it resemble the thing on the left of the picture.


----------



## J-WO (Jun 5, 2010)

Actually, the plaque reminds me of my grandmother's old adage-

'People who live in glass houses shouldn't practice nudism.'


----------



## Urien (Jun 6, 2010)

How much practise does nudism need? 

I missed the 2000AD story though... did it go well for us?


----------



## ColdBurn (Jun 6, 2010)

Speculating on the nature of extraterrestrial intelligence is always fun.  I read  a thread on another forum where the  author's premise was that  the aliens were actually dumb as rocks.  Because they had such a long history they eventually stumbled upon interstellar capability but though they know how to use it the technology is so ancient none of them really remembers how it works.  When they arrive here they are frightened of  us.


----------



## Parson (Jun 7, 2010)

Actually this is a fairly common plot device. "Footfall" (Jerry Pournelle) comes to mind. It is also a small part of the plot of "Off Armageddon Reef" by David Weber.


----------



## ColdBurn (Jun 7, 2010)

Right, Parson, only this is a comedy.


----------



## J-WO (Jun 8, 2010)

Urien said:


> How much practise does nudism need?



Loads, if you're aiming to make it your day job.

As for the 2000AD story, by the time the spiky-circle aliens (they are only seen in the last frame, being the twist as it were) find our message and arrive on Earth, we are running around like primitives.  We kind of look like the humans on the plaque, ie- wearing next to nothing.

Spikys say- 'It seems our galactic brothers have vanished!  There's nothing here but these pesky vermin!' They keep accidently impaling us on their spikes.

So, no, we don't do too well.

(Still, good example of a story that only truly works as a comic)


----------

