Alien News 2016: Brian Cox Theory Reveals Shocking Details

English physicist Brian Cox, who is also an Advanced Fellow of particle physics in the University of Manchester, says he knows why we have not found aliens yet. Cox claims that they likely destroyed themselves long ago because intelligent life destroys itself not long after it evolves.

more…

I have a theory too

That aliens will not visit us while we kill ourselves and trash the planet

but I see where he is going with it,

A species as a whole does not know what it is doing

compared with individuals who do know what they are doing

but ultimately individuals are let down by the whole species being greedy

the real question is how can science stop human greed

If we want to go out into space, we have to overcome greed

chap does make globalist noises, catastrophised with a desire we might all become a “we”, the greater organism, he serves ideology very nicely.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/greatfilter.html

I find Hanson on a par with Bostrom.

transition said:

chap does make globalist noises, catastrophised with a desire we might all become a “we”, the greater organism, he serves ideology very nicely.

Extinction will be global.

CrazyNeutrino said:

transition said:

chap does make globalist noises, catastrophised with a desire we might all become a “we”, the greater organism, he serves ideology very nicely.

Extinction will be global.

doesn’t surprise me at all he’s a TV thing, joined in the chorus of the most powerful delivery device the meduim has.

>Fermi said that any civilizations with rocket technology, even a simple one, can colonize the galaxy in a few million years. However, since no one accomplished this, he concluded that we were alone in the Milky Way.

It’s also possible that they simply decide that galactic colonisation is impractical and unnecessary.

CrazyNeutrino said:

but ultimately individuals are let down by the whole species being greedy

the real question is how can science stop human greed

If we want to go out into space, we have to overcome greed

I’d suggest that wanting to colonise whole galaxies is pretty greedy :)

one would imagine that Fermi was giving these hypothetical aliens the same drivers as we have. Of course we have no idea what actual aliens would be driven by but we need to start the argument somewhere.

People who enter politics are mostly there for themselves.

Look at Clinton or Trump. Do they have an ability to save the planet in the long term?

Look at the climate change figures, look at the rest of the world leaders.

Saving the planet means long term thinking and long term strategies.

It means a reduction in population.

It means reforestation.

It means sustainability, and this is where science can help us.

ChrispenEvan said:

one would imagine that Fermi was giving these hypothetical aliens the same drivers as we have. Of course we have no idea what actual aliens would be driven by but we need to start the argument somewhere.

OTOH, how many humans want to colonise the galaxy? It’s very much a minority enthusiasm, chiefly fuelled by old-fashioned escapist fantasy.

I find it hard to believe there is intelligent life ‘out there’ since there isn’t even any intelligent life here on earth..

affective too, because seems quite modest, and is until it gets to the big picture “we” conflations.

I wonder how good Aliens were/are at sustainability?

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

one would imagine that Fermi was giving these hypothetical aliens the same drivers as we have. Of course we have no idea what actual aliens would be driven by but we need to start the argument somewhere.

OTOH, how many humans want to colonise the galaxy? It’s very much a minority enthusiasm, chiefly fuelled by old-fashioned escapist fantasy.

I think the argument goes beyond just wanting to colonise a galaxy.

I think greed and sustainability are at odds with each other.

CrazyNeutrino said:

I think greed and sustainability are at odds with each other.

That is maybe why alien civilizations die out.

The further development of computers, VR, AI and biotechnology, coupled with advances in understanding the human brain, suggest an alternative technological future, one in which we greatly expand the potential of the human mind.

It may be that humans will explore and colonise the inner space of greatly expanded minds and imaginations, rather than outer space. With the only space colonisation being that which increases our chances of long-term survival (which certainly doesn’t require spreading out over an entire galaxy).

But say Aliens are found

but when you get there they are at war with each other

turn around and come back

or stay there for a cuppa

Bubblecar said:

The further development of computers, VR, AI and biotechnology, coupled with advances in understanding the human brain, suggest an alternative technological future, one in which we greatly expand the potential of the human mind.

It may be that humans will explore and colonise the inner space of greatly expanded minds and imaginations, rather than outer space. With the only space colonisation being that which increases our chances of long-term survival (which certainly doesn’t require spreading out over an entire galaxy).

Maybe quantum mechanics has some way of using communication over vast distances?

Say if we go to Mars.

Should we scan people who are genetically susceptible to murdering others.

Should we filter them out?

One thing is for sure.

We will need smarter politics.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Say if we go to Mars.

Should we scan people who are genetically susceptible to murdering others.

Should we filter them out?

this “we” thing’s contagious

transition said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Say if we go to Mars.

Should we scan people who are genetically susceptible to murdering others.

Should we filter them out?

this “we” thing’s contagious

We as in those selected to go

not everyone will be going to Mars

CrazyNeutrino said:

transition said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Say if we go to Mars.

Should we scan people who are genetically susceptible to murdering others.

Should we filter them out?

this “we” thing’s contagious

We as in those selected to go

not everyone will be going to Mars

no you’ve caught the hive mind from Brian.

transition said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

transition said:

this “we” thing’s contagious

We as in those selected to go

not everyone will be going to Mars

no you’ve caught the hive mind from Brian.

You wish to separate people from humanity in some way?

> English physicist Brian Cox, who is also an Advanced Fellow of particle physics in the University of Manchester, says he knows why we have not found aliens yet. Cox claims that they likely destroyed themselves long ago because intelligent life destroys itself not long after it evolves.

Huh? Not new.

This was proposed back in 1961, and probably much earlier. It was extremely popular throughout the cold war.

Bubblecar said:

>Fermi said that any civilizations with rocket technology, even a simple one, can colonize the galaxy in a few million years. However, since no one accomplished this, he concluded that we were alone in the Milky Way.

It’s also possible that they simply decide that galactic colonisation is impractical and unnecessary.

More interestingly, the lack of von Neumann probes does seem to suggest that ther may be something to Mr Fermi’s idea.

Would it be possible to communicate across galaxies using Quantum Technology?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Would it be possible to communicate across galaxies using Quantum Technology?

Very probably no, not unless someone comes up with a way to circumnavigate the theory of that nice Mr Einstein.

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

>Fermi said that any civilizations with rocket technology, even a simple one, can colonize the galaxy in a few million years. However, since no one accomplished this, he concluded that we were alone in the Milky Way.

It’s also possible that they simply decide that galactic colonisation is impractical and unnecessary.

More interestingly, the lack of von Neumann probes does seem to suggest that ther may be something to Mr Fermi’s idea.

yes, they are the way to go. encyclopedia galactica, rather than a conversation.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Would it be possible to communicate across galaxies using Quantum Technology?

Yes, but it would still take hundreds of thousands or millions of years, just as light and radio waves would.

btm said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Would it be possible to communicate across galaxies using Quantum Technology?

Yes, but it would still take hundreds of thousands or millions of years, just as light and radio waves would.

wot about sub-space???

So where did Wharf come from then?

Peak Warming Man said:

So where did Wharf come from then?

Beside the ocean.

ChrispenEvan said:

btm said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Would it be possible to communicate across galaxies using Quantum Technology?

Yes, but it would still take hundreds of thousands or millions of years, just as light and radio waves would.

wot about sub-space???

BDSM forum —>

Must admit the possible collapse of modern civilization is looking more credible now than it did a few decades ago.

Wouldn’t fighting over Resources look bad to Aliens?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Wouldn’t fighting over Resources look bad to Aliens?

Depends on the aliens. Daleks and Cybermen do it all the time.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Wouldn’t fighting over Resources look bad to Aliens?

how do aliens think ?

Bubblecar said:

Must admit the possible collapse of modern civilization is looking more credible now than it did a few decades ago.

Ugh no. The exact opposite. Now it looks like civilization might collapse is 50 to 200 years. A few decades ago it looked like civilization might collapse in 50 to 200 weeks.

ChrispenEvan said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Wouldn’t fighting over Resources look bad to Aliens?

how do aliens think ?

——

We will only know by encountering their first robots…

It makes sense that the first encounters humanity might intentionally have with another intelligence will be via robots that we have sent out to investigate. No problems with robots having to sleep for decades and centuries to overcome the vast distance-time that it will take, except it will take decades or centuries for the information to return.

tauto said:

ChrispenEvan said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Wouldn’t fighting over Resources look bad to Aliens?

how do aliens think ?

——

We will only know by encountering their first robots…

It makes sense that the first encounters humanity might intentionally have with another intelligence will be via robots that we have sent out to investigate. No problems with robots having to sleep for decades and centuries to overcome the vast distance-time that it will take, except it will take decades or centuries for the information to return.

this is why you use von neumann probes. self-replicating knowledge stores.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft#Von_Neumann_probes

ChrispenEvan said:

tauto said:

ChrispenEvan said:

how do aliens think ?

——

We will only know by encountering their first robots…

It makes sense that the first encounters humanity might intentionally have with another intelligence will be via robots that we have sent out to investigate. No problems with robots having to sleep for decades and centuries to overcome the vast distance-time that it will take, except it will take decades or centuries for the information to return.

this is why you use von neumann probes. self-replicating knowledge stores.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft#Von_Neumann_probes

I wish someone had mentioned them earlier.

i mentioned them years ago on the old forum. people forget though.

ChrispenEvan said:

tauto said:

ChrispenEvan said:

how do aliens think ?

——

We will only know by encountering their first robots…

It makes sense that the first encounters humanity might intentionally have with another intelligence will be via robots that we have sent out to investigate. No problems with robots having to sleep for decades and centuries to overcome the vast distance-time that it will take, except it will take decades or centuries for the information to return.

this is why you use von neumann probes. self-replicating knowledge stores.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft#Von_Neumann_probes

—-

And how much would one cost?

Sorry, I’d forgotten about that.

tauto said:

ChrispenEvan said:

tauto said:

——

We will only know by encountering their first robots…

It makes sense that the first encounters humanity might intentionally have with another intelligence will be via robots that we have sent out to investigate. No problems with robots having to sleep for decades and centuries to overcome the vast distance-time that it will take, except it will take decades or centuries for the information to return.

this is why you use von neumann probes. self-replicating knowledge stores.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft#Von_Neumann_probes

—-

And how much would one cost?

we don’t have the tech yet to build them.

ChrispenEvan said:

tauto said:

ChrispenEvan said:

this is why you use von neumann probes. self-replicating knowledge stores.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft#Von_Neumann_probes

—-

And how much would one cost?

we don’t have the tech yet to build them.

ChrispenEvan said:

tauto said:

ChrispenEvan said:

this is why you use von neumann probes. self-replicating knowledge stores.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft#Von_Neumann_probes

—-

And how much would one cost?

we don’t have the tech yet to build them.

___

Way before that tech we will have robots that can fuction as astronauts.

Opps…

ChrispenEvan said:

tauto said:

ChrispenEvan said:

this is why you use von neumann probes. self-replicating knowledge stores.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft#Von_Neumann_probes

—-

And how much would one cost?

we don’t have the tech yet to build them.

B.C disagrees.

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

tauto said:

—-

And how much would one cost?

we don’t have the tech yet to build them.

B.C disagrees.

BC can go get a von neumann probe shoved where the sun don’t shine.

Witty Rejoinder said:

ChrispenEvan said:

tauto said:

—-

And how much would one cost?

we don’t have the tech yet to build them.

Robots would have to be able to replicate and build other types of robots too

CrazyNeutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

ChrispenEvan said:

we don’t have the tech yet to build them.

Robots would have to be able to replicate and build other types of robots too

well yes, that is what these probes are, self-replicating. I think it was mentioned.

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

Must admit the possible collapse of modern civilization is looking more credible now than it did a few decades ago.

Ugh no. The exact opposite. Now it looks like civilization might collapse is 50 to 200 years. A few decades ago it looked like civilization might collapse in 50 to 200 weeks.

The first ever time I thought humankind had a chance of survival was in 5th April 2009. That was the date that the USA abandoned it’s policy of launching a first strike nuclear war against Russia.

ChrispenEvan said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Robots would have to be able to replicate and build other types of robots too

well yes, that is what these probes are, self-replicating. I think it was mentioned.

You mentioned it, didn’t you, Boris?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

ChrispenEvan said:

we don’t have the tech yet to build them.

Robots would have to be able to replicate and build other types of robots too

——

Which would be a lot easier than landing on a planet and creating an industrial workshop that builds intergalactic ships.

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

tauto said:

—-

And how much would one cost?

we don’t have the tech yet to build them.

B.C disagrees.

Perhaps if all the technology were combined somehow

Lots of breakthroughs in quantum computing but still no Real wizz bang Quantum computer

We might need quantum computing to design / build starship engines

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Robots would have to be able to replicate and build other types of robots too

well yes, that is what these probes are, self-replicating. I think it was mentioned.

You mentioned it, didn’t you, Boris?

more than once.

tauto said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Robots would have to be able to replicate and build other types of robots too

——

Which would be a lot easier than landing on a planet and creating an industrial workshop that builds intergalactic ships.

There are always asteroids around.

Maybe some time in the future when we can compress hydrogen into heavier elements on a massive scale, we could build anything, then all we would need is a hydrogen cloud.

ChrispenEvan said:

lol

CrazyNeutrino said:

transition said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

We as in those selected to go

not everyone will be going to Mars

no you’ve caught the hive mind from Brian.

You wish to separate people from humanity in some way?

Play word games all you like, shift “we” into humanity into civilization, it’s contrary to the necessarily brute differentiated conscious I that makes any thought possible. There’s no technological overshoot along with a corresponding unreconcilable political shortcoming, unless you are living or selling some new religion like globalism.

“We” is used as an inclusive hook all the time, a device of ideology for recruitment and conversion (too reinforcement), and where it is used and not said explicitly there are other words and phrases with more subtlety. And variously manipulations, situational/contextual, TV has a well funded arsenal and history of employing them to great affect. A well-honed craft.

Brian’s on the big we train.

transition said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

transition said:

no you’ve caught the hive mind from Brian.

You wish to separate people from humanity in some way?

Play word games all you like, shift “we” into humanity into civilization, it’s contrary to the necessarily brute differentiated conscious I that makes any thought possible. There’s no technological overshoot along with a corresponding unreconcilable political shortcoming, unless you are living or selling some new religion like globalism.

“We” is used as an inclusive hook all the time, a device of ideology for recruitment and conversion (too reinforcement), and where it is used and not said explicitly there are other words and phrases with more subtlety. And variously manipulations, situational/contextual, TV has a well funded arsenal and history of employing them to great affect. A well-honed craft.

Brian’s on the big we train.

wibble.

>wibble.

could be, and there is the wibbly we

there is only “we” unless you have somewhere else to go. that is how simple it is. not complicated and one can still be an individual.

transition said:

>wibble.

could be, and there is the wibbly we

There is also sustainability and we.

ChrispenEvan said:

there is only “we” unless you have somewhere else to go. that is how simple it is. not complicated and one can still be an individual.

I agree but I suspect Brian might be underestimating us. Given the resourcefulness of human beings it might prove difficult to kill us all off, even if we try really hard.

ChrispenEvan said:

there is only “we” unless you have somewhere else to go. that is how simple it is. not complicated and one can still be an individual.

yes it’s a concept that inclines a lot of consideration of the concept within the creatures it inhabits, I see it doesn’t find its way in through a few million years of evolved social instincts that to some degree obstruct deconstucting themselves. Individuals get up every morning and with ease reverse-engineer the hoodoo.

transition said:

ChrispenEvan said:

there is only “we” unless you have somewhere else to go. that is how simple it is. not complicated and one can still be an individual.

yes it’s a concept that inclines a lot of consideration of the concept within the creatures it inhabits, I see it doesn’t find its way in through a few million years of evolved social instincts that to some degree obstruct deconstucting themselves. Individuals get up every morning and with ease reverse-engineer the hoodoo.

don’t try to be too intelligent as it results in a meaningless uttering. you are talking to humans atm not your sheep. read back what you wrote onty, it’s rubbish.

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

there is only “we” unless you have somewhere else to go. that is how simple it is. not complicated and one can still be an individual.

I agree but I suspect Brian might be underestimating us. Given the resourcefulness of human beings it might prove difficult to kill us all off, even if we try really hard.

Surely if we try really hard and fail, that’s a sign of lack of resourcefulness.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

there is only “we” unless you have somewhere else to go. that is how simple it is. not complicated and one can still be an individual.

I agree but I suspect Brian might be underestimating us. Given the resourcefulness of human beings it might prove difficult to kill us all off, even if we try really hard.

Surely if we try really hard and fail, that’s a sign of lack of resourcefulness.

Competing sets of resourcefulness, with survival presenting a wider range of options than mass destruction.

I understand the difference between individuals and humanity

humanity is the total behavior of everyone, over populating, mining, building, polluting, deforesting, over fishing, over farming on a global scale

viewed from space, Aliens would observe us on a global scale

As we are still at war with ourselves, and messing up the planet

Aliens will take that into account if they are good observers

Human behavior viewed from space on a global scale and over thousands of years

It doesn’t look good, the media does not look good either.

I don’t think aliens are in a hurry to visit a species that kills itself.

>talking to humans atm

talking to you here, the singular you, though I suppose you may have multiplied into some plurality, like a smith virus, representing the species I guess is the intention.

it’s catching the we thing.

transition said:

>talking to humans atm

talking to you here, the singular you, though I suppose you may have multiplied into some plurality, like a smith virus, representing the species I guess is the intention.

it’s catching the we thing.

We call aliens aliens, they multiply as individuals

we multiply too as individuals

seen by aliens we are a species

just as aliens are a species to us

transition said:

>talking to humans atm

talking to you here, the singular you, though I suppose you may have multiplied into some plurality, like a smith virus, representing the species I guess is the intention.

it’s catching the we thing.

see, that is your narrow world view. you cannot comprehend that there may be, and most likely is, more people reading what you write than just me.

CrazyNeutrino said:

transition said:

>talking to humans atm

talking to you here, the singular you, though I suppose you may have multiplied into some plurality, like a smith virus, representing the species I guess is the intention.

it’s catching the we thing.

We call aliens aliens, they multiply as individuals

we multiply too as individuals

seen by aliens we are a species

just as aliens are a species to us

aliens may be many species.

it could be too that distances are just so large and the technology required to traverse them simply doesn’t exist

diddly-squat said:

it could be too that distances are just so large and the technology required to traverse them simply doesn’t exist

Intergalactic possibly. Interstellar, no. For interstellar travel all that is needed is a trifle more patience.

CrazyNeutrino said:

But say Aliens are found

but when you get there they are at war with each other

turn around and come back

or stay there for a cuppa

You start funneling men and weapons across the border and training terrorist groups amongst the aliens.

In “V” if the aliens had simply nutured and expanded conflicts between humans they could have done what they liked.

mollwollfumble said:

diddly-squat said:

it could be too that distances are just so large and the technology required to traverse them simply doesn’t exist

Intergalactic possibly. Interstellar, no. For interstellar travel all that is needed is a trifle more patience.

8/

the Milky Way is roughly 100,000 light years across… human patience doesn’t stretch quite that far..

Aliens could become energy efficient and their own local star system provides them with everything they could possibly need for the duration of the stars lifespan probably far in excess of their own civilisations existence.

Cymek said:

Aliens could become energy efficient and their own local star system provides them with everything they could possibly need for the duration of the stars lifespan probably far in excess of their own civilisations existence.

maybe, doesn’t change the fact that the technology for them to ever travel any meaningful distance simply may not exist…

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

Aliens could become energy efficient and their own local star system provides them with everything they could possibly need for the duration of the stars lifespan probably far in excess of their own civilisations existence.

maybe, doesn’t change the fact that the technology for them to ever travel any meaningful distance simply may not exist…

True we could be spoilt on science fiction FTL but in reality it doesn’t exist

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

Aliens could become energy efficient and their own local star system provides them with everything they could possibly need for the duration of the stars lifespan probably far in excess of their own civilisations existence.

maybe, doesn’t change the fact that the technology for them to ever travel any meaningful distance simply may not exist…

True we could be spoilt on science fiction FTL but in reality it doesn’t exist

somewhere on the internet BC’s head just exploded

mollwollfumble said:

> English physicist Brian Cox, who is also an Advanced Fellow of particle physics in the University of Manchester, says he knows why we have not found aliens yet. Cox claims that they likely destroyed themselves long ago because intelligent life destroys itself not long after it evolves.

Huh? Not new.

This was proposed back in 1961, and probably much earlier. It was extremely popular throughout the cold war.

Well if Elon Musk can get away with it, why not Brian Cox?

ChrispenEvan said:

transition said:

>talking to humans atm

talking to you here, the singular you, though I suppose you may have multiplied into some plurality, like a smith virus, representing the species I guess is the intention.

it’s catching the we thing.

see, that is your narrow world view. you cannot comprehend that there may be, and most likely is, more people reading what you write than just me.

Whatever, like Brian probably thinks ET’s watching his show. And yes i’m parochial.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> English physicist Brian Cox, who is also an Advanced Fellow of particle physics in the University of Manchester, says he knows why we have not found aliens yet. Cox claims that they likely destroyed themselves long ago because intelligent life destroys itself not long after it evolves.

Huh? Not new.

This was proposed back in 1961, and probably much earlier. It was extremely popular throughout the cold war.

Well if Elon Musk can get away with it, why not Brian Cox?

Lots of famous people say things like the above and get credit even if that type of thinking has been around for many decades

ChrispenEvan said:

one would imagine that Fermi was giving these hypothetical aliens the same drivers as we have. Of course we have no idea what actual aliens would be driven by but we need to start the argument somewhere.

Well we can’t be certain, but we can make some reasonable hypotheses about what is likely.

Assuming that these aliens have evolved over time (rather than being created by some already intelligent entity, for instance), then in order to have developed advanced technology they must live in reasonably large social groups. It seems likely that the same evolutionary pressures that lead to humans being cooperative with their immediate group, and antagonistic with their immediate neighbours, would lead to the same features in other intelligent creatures.

In developing the technology for space travel it seems inevitable that the technology for nuclear weapons would also be discovered. On the other hand, it also seems likely that development of the technology to ensure extension of tribal cooperation to planet wide cooperation of the entire population would not be discovered, since this appears to be very difficult.

It therefore follows that any alien population that has the potential to develop inter-stellar travel is likely to blow itself up before having time to put this potential into practice.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> English physicist Brian Cox, who is also an Advanced Fellow of particle physics in the University of Manchester, says he knows why we have not found aliens yet. Cox claims that they likely destroyed themselves long ago because intelligent life destroys itself not long after it evolves.

Huh? Not new.

This was proposed back in 1961, and probably much earlier. It was extremely popular throughout the cold war.

Well if Elon Musk can get away with it, why not Brian Cox?

Lots of famous people say things like the above and get credit even if that type of thinking has been around for many decades

True, I just like to pick on Elon for some reason.

Better than picking on Hawking anyway :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

It therefore follows that any alien population that has the potential to develop inter-stellar travel is likely to blow itself up before having time to put this potential into practice.

Extinction of the species would be very unlikely even with widespread nuclear war. For example the largest scale proposed nuclear strikes at the height of the cold war would have left South America largely unaffected.

The Rev Dodgson said:

True, I just like to pick on Elon for some reason.

If you ever dealt with one of his companies you would feel a lot better about your picking on him :)

Those theories that any intelligent species is likely to destroy itself via warfare at least, presuppose a species that is engaged in conflict with itself. It might be an accident that we are ancestors of an aggressive and territorial ape, if instead we descended from a hive mind conflict within the species might be unknown.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It therefore follows that any alien population that has the potential to develop inter-stellar travel is likely to blow itself up before having time to put this potential into practice.

Extinction of the species would be very unlikely even with widespread nuclear war. For example the largest scale proposed nuclear strikes at the height of the cold war would have left South America largely unaffected.

Only if they didn’t bomb South America.

But it doesn’t need to completely kill off the species, just kill of the technological civilisation.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It therefore follows that any alien population that has the potential to develop inter-stellar travel is likely to blow itself up before having time to put this potential into practice.

Extinction of the species would be very unlikely even with widespread nuclear war. For example the largest scale proposed nuclear strikes at the height of the cold war would have left South America largely unaffected.

Only if they didn’t bomb South America.

But it doesn’t need to completely kill off the species, just kill of the technological civilisation.

If we had a war and all technology was lost but the knowledge still existed I wonder if we could rebuild with many of the easier accessible energy sources mostly used up

AwesomeO said:

Those theories that any intelligent species is likely to destroy itself via warfare at least, presuppose a species that is engaged in conflict with itself. It might be an accident that we are ancestors of an aggressive and territorial ape, if instead we descended from a hive mind conflict within the species might be unknown.

Since any “hive mind” will start off in small hives, which will be in competition with other hives, evolution will ensure that the most successful hives are those that out-compete their neighbours.

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

Those theories that any intelligent species is likely to destroy itself via warfare at least, presuppose a species that is engaged in conflict with itself. It might be an accident that we are ancestors of an aggressive and territorial ape, if instead we descended from a hive mind conflict within the species might be unknown.

Since any “hive mind” will start off in small hives, which will be in competition with other hives, evolution will ensure that the most successful hives are those that out-compete their neighbours.

Not at all, they might just join hives, overpopulation would be managed by sacrifice and lowered breeding. This is aliens we are talking about here and any reasonable supposition is as likely as any other and I don’t take it as an iron clad law that every advanced intelligence must be at risk of destroying itself through warfare just because our own evolution was influenced by a territorial ape. Disease, environmental degradation etc possibly.

Space faring civilisations may engineer themselves to be less aggressive and replace their dangerous childlike ancestors

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

Those theories that any intelligent species is likely to destroy itself via warfare at least, presuppose a species that is engaged in conflict with itself. It might be an accident that we are ancestors of an aggressive and territorial ape, if instead we descended from a hive mind conflict within the species might be unknown.

Since any “hive mind” will start off in small hives, which will be in competition with other hives, evolution will ensure that the most successful hives are those that out-compete their neighbours.

Not at all, they might just join hives, overpopulation would be managed by sacrifice and lowered breeding. This is aliens we are talking about here and any reasonable supposition is as likely as any other and I don’t take it as an iron clad law that every advanced intelligence must be at risk of destroying itself through warfare just because our own evolution was influenced by a territorial ape. Disease, environmental degradation etc possibly.

I guess the point TRD was making, or at least the point I think he may have been trying to make, is that this would seem contrary to the sort of ‘hive mind’ behavior we see here on Earth as such we have no real evidence to support it.

diddly-squat said:

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Since any “hive mind” will start off in small hives, which will be in competition with other hives, evolution will ensure that the most successful hives are those that out-compete their neighbours.

Not at all, they might just join hives, overpopulation would be managed by sacrifice and lowered breeding. This is aliens we are talking about here and any reasonable supposition is as likely as any other and I don’t take it as an iron clad law that every advanced intelligence must be at risk of destroying itself through warfare just because our own evolution was influenced by a territorial ape. Disease, environmental degradation etc possibly.

I guess the point TRD was making, or at least the point I think he may have been trying to make, is that this would seem contrary to the sort of ‘hive mind’ behavior we see here on Earth as such we have no real evidence to support it.

The only point I am making, but using a hive mind as a metaphor, it is silly to conceive that the only possibility is that aliens must be a species that will be in conflict with its own species.

AwesomeO said:

Not at all, they might just join hives, overpopulation would be managed by sacrifice and lowered breeding. This is aliens we are talking about here and any reasonable supposition is as likely as any other and I don’t take it as an iron clad law that every advanced intelligence must be at risk of destroying itself through warfare just because our own evolution was influenced by a territorial ape. Disease, environmental degradation etc possibly.

Any reasonable supposition has to include an evolutionary trail by which a hypothesised feature might have evolved. It’s not just apes that are territorial. All animal species that live in tribal groups are territorial, and there is a reason for that.

I don’t think the limiting factor is just warfare. Could be environmental or economic. Personally I just don’t think speedy interstellar travel is possible. so it’s an engineering problem.

Cymek said:

Space faring civilisations may engineer themselves to be less aggressive and replace their dangerous childlike ancestors

Would humans?

Humans are much less aggressive than we used to be, for several reasons. One is that most grow up in a relatively war-less environment. Another is that contraception and SSRIs have reduced sexual aggression. A third is that most of us no longer catch, kill and butcher our own meat.

But is that a temporary phenomenon?

ChrispenEvan said:

I don’t think the limiting factor is just warfare. Could be environmental or economic. Personally I just don’t think speedy interstellar travel is possible. so it’s an engineering problem.

I think the limiting factor is warfare. It could be flood basalt or unstoppable epidemic, but warfare can be even deadlier than both of those. In a World War III where strategic nuclear bombs have become “conventional”, and where people have the ability to wipe out all human life on Earth using strictly conventional weapons, I hate to think what new, deadlier “unconventional” weapons would be like.

> I just don’t think speedy interstellar travel is possible

You don’t need speed, you need patience.

mollwollfumble said:

> I just don’t think speedy interstellar travel is possible

You don’t need speed, you need patience.

yeah no… any generational type travel is just fanciful and largely meaningless other than to boldly go where no one has gone before..

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

> I just don’t think speedy interstellar travel is possible

You don’t need speed, you need patience.

yeah no… any generational type travel is just fanciful and largely meaningless other than to boldly go where no one has gone before..

A generational ship could possibly need to support a civilisation longer than modern humans have existed here on Earth

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

> I just don’t think speedy interstellar travel is possible

You don’t need speed, you need patience.

yeah no… any generational type travel is just fanciful and largely meaningless other than to boldly go where no one has gone before..

Who said generational? Seedships with frozen embryos are a much better way to go. An alternative approach is to genetically manipulate whatever lifeform you find extant at your destination to render them intelligent.

mollwollfumble said:

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

> I just don’t think speedy interstellar travel is possible

You don’t need speed, you need patience.

yeah no… any generational type travel is just fanciful and largely meaningless other than to boldly go where no one has gone before..

Who said generational? Seedships with frozen embryos are a much better way to go. An alternative approach is to genetically manipulate whatever lifeform you find extant at your destination to render them intelligent.

What sort of time frame can embryos be frozen so they aren’t just viable when thawed but the human that grows up isn’t damaged in some way.

mollwollfumble said:

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

> I just don’t think speedy interstellar travel is possible

You don’t need speed, you need patience.

yeah no… any generational type travel is just fanciful and largely meaningless other than to boldly go where no one has gone before..

Who said generational? Seedships with frozen embryos are a much better way to go. An alternative approach is to genetically manipulate whatever lifeform you find extant at your destination to render them intelligent.

what would be the purpose of this?

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

diddly-squat said:

yeah no… any generational type travel is just fanciful and largely meaningless other than to boldly go where no one has gone before..

Who said generational? Seedships with frozen embryos are a much better way to go. An alternative approach is to genetically manipulate whatever lifeform you find extant at your destination to render them intelligent.

What sort of time frame can embryos be frozen so they aren’t just viable when thawed but the human that grows up isn’t damaged in some way.

It’s a good question, and nobody knows the answer to it yet.

With a bit of luck, 225 million years plus. Bacteria have lived that long when packed in salt.

I should add that I once calculated the mass required to transport the entire ecosystem of the Earth in one seedship. It’s less than the mass of a single adult human.

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

diddly-squat said:

yeah no… any generational type travel is just fanciful and largely meaningless other than to boldly go where no one has gone before..

Who said generational? Seedships with frozen embryos are a much better way to go. An alternative approach is to genetically manipulate whatever lifeform you find extant at your destination to render them intelligent.

what would be the purpose of this?

Haven’t you figured that out yet? It isn’t the human meat that wants to replicate among the stars. It’s human intelligence. Even chimpanzees couldn’t care less about space flight.

We know that the Earth is doomed. That’s 100% certain. The sooner we can find a safe way to export human intelligence off Earth the better.

An idea for a lack of so far detectable ET’s could be that most planets are colonised by artificial intelligence/digital avatars/etc and their signals just look like noise, biological entities don’t leave their home system

mollwollfumble said:

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

Who said generational? Seedships with frozen embryos are a much better way to go. An alternative approach is to genetically manipulate whatever lifeform you find extant at your destination to render them intelligent.

what would be the purpose of this?

Haven’t you figured that out yet? It isn’t the human meat that wants to replicate among the stars. It’s human intelligence. Even chimpanzees couldn’t care less about space flight.

We know that the Earth is doomed. That’s 100% certain. The sooner we can find a safe way to export human intelligence off Earth the better.

I find these sorts of species survival comments a little strange… why is it so important that humans “live on”

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

Space faring civilisations may engineer themselves to be less aggressive and replace their dangerous childlike ancestors

Would humans?

Humans are much less aggressive than we used to be, for several reasons. One is that most grow up in a relatively war-less environment. Another is that contraception and SSRIs have reduced sexual aggression. A third is that most of us no longer catch, kill and butcher our own meat.

But is that a temporary phenomenon?

Say what? Less aggressive? Last century was the bloodiest in human history by at least an order of magnitude. As for a war less environment…don’t you watch the news?

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

diddly-squat said:

what would be the purpose of this?

Haven’t you figured that out yet? It isn’t the human meat that wants to replicate among the stars. It’s human intelligence. Even chimpanzees couldn’t care less about space flight.

We know that the Earth is doomed. That’s 100% certain. The sooner we can find a safe way to export human intelligence off Earth the better.

I find these sorts of species survival comments a little strange… why is it so important that humans “live on”

To see what we can achieve, the universe itself really doesn’t care and in fact (but not deliberate) tries for us not to survive.

sibeen said:

Say what? Less aggressive? Last century was the bloodiest in human history by at least an order of magnitude. As for a war less environment…don’t you watch the news?

I doubt that, if we work in terms of combat deaths per head of population.

But seeing as basic aggressiveness is an inherited quality, and I doubt that we are significantly more or less aggressive than we used to be.

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

Say what? Less aggressive? Last century was the bloodiest in human history by at least an order of magnitude. As for a war less environment…don’t you watch the news?

I doubt that, if we work in terms of combat deaths per head of population.

But seeing as basic aggressiveness is an inherited quality, and I doubt that we are significantly more or less aggressive than we used to be.

We may never overcome it completely if its in our nature

sibeen said:

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

Space faring civilisations may engineer themselves to be less aggressive and replace their dangerous childlike ancestors

Would humans?

Humans are much less aggressive than we used to be, for several reasons. One is that most grow up in a relatively war-less environment. Another is that contraception and SSRIs have reduced sexual aggression. A third is that most of us no longer catch, kill and butcher our own meat.

But is that a temporary phenomenon?

Say what? Less aggressive? Last century was the bloodiest in human history by at least an order of magnitude. As for a war less environment…don’t you watch the news?

Last century was the least bloody in human history. In fact, two to three decades ago everything was positively peaceful. I’m a member of the first generation since the end of the Roman Empire that never went to war.

As for war-less environment. Yes.

The only news I watch is the news on ABC3. It’s the only news worth watching.

> An idea for a lack of so far detectable ET’s could be that most planets are colonised by artificial intelligence/digital avatars/etc and their signals just look like noise, biological entities don’t leave their home system

That their signals look like noise is so likely as to be absolutely certain. I personally think they use burst transmissions at very high frequency over a very short time period.

As for not leaving their home system, only a tiny fraction of one in a million entities would every leave their home system.

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

diddly-squat said:

what would be the purpose of this?

Haven’t you figured that out yet? It isn’t the human meat that wants to replicate among the stars. It’s human intelligence. Even chimpanzees couldn’t care less about space flight.

We know that the Earth is doomed. That’s 100% certain. The sooner we can find a safe way to export human intelligence off Earth the better.

I find these sorts of species survival comments a little strange… why is it so important that humans “live on”

Exactly. That’s another reason I’m opposed to generation ships, they’re too human egocentric. It doesn’t matter to me one bit what physical form an intelligence takes. I couldn’t care less if humans as humans don’t live on, we’re going to be a different species in 5 million years or so anyway. if seedships decide on arrival that a distant planet should be seeded by worms rather than humans then I have no problem with that.

mollwollfumble said:

sibeen said:

mollwollfumble said:

Haven’t you figured that out yet? It isn’t the human meat that wants to replicate among the stars. It’s human intelligence. Even chimpanzees couldn’t care less about space flight.

We know that the Earth is doomed. That’s 100% certain. The sooner we can find a safe way to export human intelligence off Earth the better.

I find these sorts of species survival comments a little strange… why is it so important that humans “live on”

Exactly. That’s another reason I’m opposed to generation ships, they’re too human egocentric. It doesn’t matter to me one bit what physical form an intelligence takes. I couldn’t care less if humans as humans don’t live on, we’re going to be a different species in 5 million years or so anyway. if seedships decide on arrival that a distant planet should be seeded by worms rather than humans then I have no problem with that.

mollwollfumble said:

sibeen said:

mollwollfumble said:

Haven’t you figured that out yet? It isn’t the human meat that wants to replicate among the stars. It’s human intelligence. Even chimpanzees couldn’t care less about space flight.

We know that the Earth is doomed. That’s 100% certain. The sooner we can find a safe way to export human intelligence off Earth the better.

I find these sorts of species survival comments a little strange… why is it so important that humans “live on”

Exactly. That’s another reason I’m opposed to generation ships, they’re too human egocentric. It doesn’t matter to me one bit what physical form an intelligence takes. I couldn’t care less if humans as humans don’t live on, we’re going to be a different species in 5 million years or so anyway. if seedships decide on arrival that a distant planet should be seeded by worms rather than humans then I have no problem with that.

What makes us human is our minds not our bodies and even then the human mind will change over time.

Isn’t ABC3 a kids network?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Isn’t ABC3 a kids network?

Second last time I watched ABC3 News, it included three of the thread topics on this forum.

mollwollfumble said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Isn’t ABC3 a kids network?

Second last time I watched ABC3 News, it included three of the thread topics on this forum.

Why does that matter?

Because it’s news moll is interested in.

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Isn’t ABC3 a kids network?

Second last time I watched ABC3 News, it included three of the thread topics on this forum.

Why does that matter?

All the other news stations are full of crap. eg. Top news story day before yesterday on Channel 2 news “50 year old woman dies”. Second top news story on Channel 2 news “Donald Trump doesn’t like Hillary”. Yeh, like that’s news.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Isn’t ABC3 a kids network?

yes… he’s talking about “Behind The News” – it’s a kids current affairs show

diddly-squat said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Isn’t ABC3 a kids network?

yes… he’s talking about “Behind The News” – it’s a kids current affairs show

chuckle

Had to watch that at primary school for some reason.

One thing to consider is the gravity / atmosphere of habitable planets

What if the gravity is stronger? or the atmosphere is slightly different?

We may need to adapt our bodies to the stronger or weaker gravity of a habitable planet

Say we transfer our intelligence to machines, then that becomes easier

If we do transfer out intelligence to machines then why bother with planets?

then transporting food and life support becomes obsolete

CrazyNeutrino said:

One thing to consider is the gravity / atmosphere of habitable planets

What if the gravity is stronger? or the atmosphere is slightly different?

We may need to adapt our bodies to the stronger or weaker gravity of a habitable planet

Say we transfer our intelligence to machines, then that becomes easier

If we do transfer out intelligence to machines then why bother with planets?

then transporting food and life support becomes obsolete

> If we do transfer out intelligence to machines then why bother with planets?

One Scifi book makes the point that it can be easier to transport organisms than machines. They have a point. It can be easier to make a horse from an embryo than to make a tractor from blueprints.

poikilotherm said:

diddly-squat said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Isn’t ABC3 a kids network?

yes… he’s talking about “Behind The News” – it’s a kids current affairs show

chuckle

Had to watch that at primary school for some reason.

me too