Slashdot Mirror


Don't Talk To Aliens, Warns Stephen Hawking

Megaport writes "Promoting his new series on the Discovery channel, Stephen Hawking has given an interview to the Times in which 'he has suggested that extraterrestrials are almost certain to exist but that instead of seeking them out, humanity should be doing all that it can to avoid any contact.' He says, 'I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach. ... If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans.' Personally, I've always thought that the indigenous people of the world really had no chance to avoid contact here on such a small planet, but is hiding under our collective bed an option for humanity in the wider galaxy?"

115 of 1,015 comments (clear)

  1. Security through obscurity? by jolyonr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hiding will never work :)

    --


    Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
    1. Re:Security through obscurity? by dotancohen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hiding will never work :)

      But it might buy us the time to develop technology to defend ourselves. Having them nuke us from orbit (it's the only way to be sure) would not be so good for humanity.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    2. Re:Security through obscurity? by boaworm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given how large the universe is, we don't even have to hide. As it seems hard to travel faster than light, we should be pretty safe :-)

      --
      Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
      Aristotele
    3. Re:Security through obscurity? by Teancum · · Score: 5, Funny

      We can simply pass a United Nations resolution and sign a treaty to keep nukes or for that matter all weapons from space. Doesn't that work? Won't all spacefaring civilizations have such a similar attitude?

    4. Re:Security through obscurity? by prabha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hiding will never work :)

      So is announcing your password.

    5. Re:Security through obscurity? by JustOK · · Score: 3, Funny

      Security through absurdity.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    6. Re:Security through obscurity? by pudge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ALL security is effectively through obscurity. Because it's impossible to prove any security method to be secure, any and all security measures are put in place with the hope that any adversary doesn't know how to defeat those measures.

      Not true. Take the game of chess, for example. Everything in chess is right out in the open. There may be some misdirection involved, but nothing is actually hidden from the adversary. Yet you still have security measures in place.

      You don't put armed guards outside a military outpost in the hope that the enemy won't know HOW to defeat them; you just hope they won't try, because it's too difficult or costly. And if they do try, you will defeat them mostly with brute force, not with anything hidden or secretive.

    7. Re:Security through obscurity? by thrillseeker · · Score: 3, Funny

      We'd have to find some aliens before we didn't talk to them.

    8. Re:Security through obscurity? by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Security is not meant to be absolute but in cryptography the goal is to make cracking the information take longer than the information remains relevant. For example we know how to break an RSA cipher but that doesn't mean it's feasible. Security through obscurity means that your security is based on the principle that your opponent doesn't know how it works. With a good cipher figuring out what algorithm you used is only a tiny step in the process of cracking it and finding the actual parameters for the algorithm will consume the vast majority of the time. A publicly known algorithm has more eyes looking at it and finding weaknesses/countermeasures, an "obscure" algorithm is usually created specifically for one task, sees significantly less review and may (read: most likely will) contain flaws that would allow an attacker to break it with little effort once he figures out how the algorithm works.

      It is not the algorithm that must remain secret, it's the key used with it.

      Anyway, in this case it's more like stealth than cryptography.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    9. Re:Security through obscurity? by DarkOx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if we hate them and fight them, or are just too arrogant about preferring our own ways, we'll die, just like Geronimo and Boudica did.

      Or you know we might also win. Like how the British Empire defeated Napoleonic France, The Allies defeated the Axis powers, and so on. You might have a point, in that electing not to fight means you are most likely to get to go on; but if you live by the sword or die by the sword sometimes you do live.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    10. Re:Security through obscurity? by stonewallred · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We are humans. As RAH said, we are probably the most warlike and violent race that has reached rudimentary intelligence in the universe. If there were other intelligent races, far advance of us, but with our innate bloodthirstiness and violent tendencies, we would dead. Look at the hostility the vast majority of humans have towards each other based on skin color or religion or where they live. Do you actually think humanity as a whole would welcome intelligent beings from another planet, especially if they were as different as us as we are from a fish? Pssh. If you do, you have more faith in humanity than all the religious folks have in their god(s) since the beginning of time.

    11. Re:Security through obscurity? by CarpetShark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or you know we might also win.

      Perhaps, but I highly doubt it. I think you underestimate just how advanced another civilisation would likely be, considering the galactic scale of travel they'd have to undertake to get here, and the galactic timescales over which they might have evolved. Most likely, the culture shock would be AT LEAST as jarring for us as that which native americans faced when presented with horses, rifles, whiskey, christianity, ocean-going ships, wagons, steam trains, buffalo hunters, miners, etc. Chances are it would be MUCH worse -- probably not even conceivable to our backwater, unevolved minds.

    12. Re:Security through obscurity? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, that highly depends on their timeframe. Hiroshima was bombed 60 years ago, but they rebuilt the city and according to wikipedia there's more than a million living there today. I'm not sure if it's exactly over ground zero but certainly not that far as it's still in the same bay. Spending some hundred years taking out all major forms of life and terraforming it to spec hardly seems impossible or unreasonable for an alien race of sufficient technological capability.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    13. Re:Security through obscurity? by Kjella · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, there'll be this man in a blue box calling them up to tell them we're protected under the Shadow Proclamation.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    14. Re:Security through obscurity? by houghi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is great that you just assume they have weapons of mass destruction. That worked in the past very well.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    15. Re:Security through obscurity? by CarpetShark · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hiding will never work :)

      OMG, who said that?

    16. Re:Security through obscurity? by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Interstellar spacecraft are weapons of mass destruction.

      Above a significant fraction of the speed of light, any normal matter has an energy density greater than a nuclear weapon.
      Above a larger fraction of the speed of light, any normal matter has an energy density greater than an anti-matter reaction involving the same rest mass.

    17. Re:Security through obscurity? by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why work so hard...

      If they have spaceships, then they can go out to the asteriod belt and hurl an endless supply of ammunition at us that would decimate us and pose no risk at all to the attackers.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    18. Re:Security through obscurity? by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do you know what other species gets hopped up on fast food, nasty drugs and a sedentary lifestyle leading to obesity?

      Cows. And they taste pretty damn good.

    19. Re:Security through obscurity? by Tobenisstinky · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly my thought, that whole 'high ground' thing...But even if we were there who's to say that their technology doesn't allow them to pop out of a worm hole behind our defences?

      --
      wha'? where am i?
    20. Re:Security through obscurity? by digitalgiblet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If they can get here from other stars I think it's a safe bet they have weapons of MASSIVE destruction. They would have to be far enough more advanced than us that we probably can't even imagine their capabilities (or understand them if we see them). Of course all they really need to do is tug a few astroids along and drop rocks on us, right?

      A more insidious possibility is that they have weapons of mass control. Enslavement or genocide? There is also the "tasty treat" possiblility. Most likely is the "we don't really understand what they are doing" option.

      The only way for them to be even close to our level of technology would be if they travel at speeds we could potentially travel at, right? In other words waaaay below lightspeed (discounting naturally occurring wormholes that happen to be conveniently placed - or the whole "ancients" idea of an earlier higher level civilization that left behind a transit system). In that case they would have ships we could see coming, possibly for years. Either they would have life-spans far, far longer than ours, they would be traveling in generation ships, or even possibly be cyborgs. If we don't see them coming, I'd say we can assume a level of technology we have zero chance of defending against. If we see them coming we might have a fighting chance.

    21. Re:Security through obscurity? by Gorobei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or, they just set up a big sun-powered phased array in their home system and bathe us in laser light for a year or two. Their generational ships eventually arrive to find a nice planet conveniently pre-sterilized.

      We get to see it coming, not much we can do about it, though.

    22. Re:Security through obscurity? by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The whole concept is one of paranoia. Considering the age of the galaxy, advanced species could be of immense ages. Any new interstellar aggressor species would find itself confronted by a whole range of progressively more advanced species each in turn more capable of deploying more advanced and often more subtle forms of social stabilisation. The simplest method by which to judge species and what measures may be required to control threats implied by them, is the way in which they interact with less advanced species.

      Much the same way a species upon it's own planet would be judged by the way they interact with each other, with suppositions of racial differences where none exist, of artificial regional divides, specifically demonstrated where a species one region preys upon and exploits the same species in another region, with claims of racial differences to hide, degenerative social diseases, like psychopathy and narcissism.

      So any threatening species would be dealt with, likely well before they became destructive upon an interstellar basis. The greater the gap in advancement the less likely communication will occur, as there will always be more similarly advanced species to fill that interaction and monitoring gap, who in turn would be monitored by next nearest level of advancement.

      Besides planets in reality are pretty crappy resources for any interstellar species, nebula and dust clouds have stupendously huge quantities of material available, sufficient to make thousands even millions of suns, already in affect mined, granulated to a fine powder and just requiring filtering to extract the desired elements.

      Humanity has to be far more concerned with how they interact with each other and how that interaction could be interpreted from an external viewpoint and whether it could be considered as potentially threatening and what actions are required to nip the threat in the bud. Whether it be social modification and, or culling of specific socially destructive elements.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    23. Re:Security through obscurity? by khayman80 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Spending some hundred years taking out all major forms of life and terraforming it to spec hardly seems impossible or unreasonable for an alien race of sufficient technological capability.

      It seems like an alien race with "sufficient technological capability" that evolved on a terrestrial planet would probably prefer to build swarms of O'Neill cylinders rather than nuking and terraforming terrestrial planets. Consider that:

      • Building O'Neill cylinders could provide living space even in star systems without planets in the habitable zone.
      • Materials science appears to allow cylinders several kilometers in diameter to rotate fast enough to impart 1g of "apparent" gravity. Rotational effects are indistinguishable at these large radii, so life inside a cylinder could be made nearly identical to life on the surface of a terrestrial planet.
      • A civilization spread among 10,000 cylinders is more robust than one concentrated onto 1 (or even 10) planets.
      • Planets provide a certain amount of surface area for a given mass. The same mass converted to cylinders would provide much more surface area. Planets are the least efficient way of using matter to provide habitable surface area, by many orders of magnitude.
      • A civilization on the surface of a planet is at the bottom of a gravity well which is expensive and dangerous to traverse. A civilization on a network of cylinders has no such handicap, and can actually use the rotation of the cylinders to facilitate cheap travel.
      • Suppose the cylinders use artificial lighting powered by external solar cells. While less efficient than reflecting sunlight directly into the interior, this approach would allow cylinders to be built around red dwarfs, which don't have the right spectra to support Earth life. Considering the abundance of red dwarfs, this significantly expands the range of potential colony stars.
      • Nuking and terraforming a planet with life destroys invaluable sources of information about evolution and alternative forms of biology.
      • Nuking and terraforming a planet with intelligent life is genocide.
    24. Re:Security through obscurity? by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pop quiz, hotshot. Garry Kasparov is coming to kill you, and the only way to change his mind is for you to beat him at chess. What do you do, what do you?

    25. Re:Security through obscurity? by scotch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Reference please.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    26. Re:Security through obscurity? by jeremyp · · Score: 4, Funny

      Name one thing that you can get on Earth that a species capable of interstellar flight can't get elsewhere much more easily (even within our own solar system) or synthesise.

      The final episode of Single Female Lawyer.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    27. Re:Security through obscurity? by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If there were other intelligent races, far advance of us, but with our innate bloodthirstiness and violent tendencies, we would dead

      Not necessarily.

      If C turns out to be a hard limit, a race that reached that ability 50,000 years ago could still have a 25,000 year journey ahead of them, before they stumble upon Earth. The universe is fucking huge. If they reached that ability a million years ago, they could have waltzed past Earth before we were barely even Homo anything, decided that Earth doesn't fit their needs (maybe too much water or oxygen or they didn't like the microbiology) and moved on.

      Hell, they could have reached that ability a billion years ago, and we'd have no possible way of knowing it.

    28. Re:Security through obscurity? by decoy256 · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...if not something more exotic.

      I read that as "something more erotic." Man, my mind is in the gutter today.

    29. Re:Security through obscurity? by Stupid+McStupidson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It won't be nukes. They'll be a thousand chunks of tungsten, traveling at .92 c and weight 1,500 tons each. With apologies to Carl Sagan: 1. Any species will place its own survival before that of a different species. 2. Any species that has made it to the top on its planet of origin will be intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary. 3. They will assume that the first two rules apply to us.

    30. Re:Security through obscurity? by CptPicard · · Score: 4, Informative

      The last paragraph is interesting considering that Sagan pointed out that the first high-powered tv broadcasts that might be intercepted by the aliens show Hitler at the Nürnberg party rally :-)

      --
      I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
    31. Re:Security through obscurity? by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe we'll be lucky, and due to a mass miscue of scale they'll be eaten be a small dog. If thye're Vogons, having the planet destroyed will be better than listening to their poetry.

    32. Re:Security through obscurity? by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you actually think humanity as a whole would welcome intelligent beings from another planet, especially if they were as different as us as we are from a fish?

      And fish would probably be like our first cousins compared to whatever species might arrive on an alien FTL spaceship.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    33. Re:Security through obscurity? by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "The whole concept is one of paranoia."

      Even if you suffer from paranoia, that doesn't mean there's nobody out there to get you.

    34. Re:Security through obscurity? by discord5 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nuking and terraforming a planet with intelligent life is genocide.

      I believe after the nukes drop, the first step in terraforming would be the aliens demanding us to "cry them a river"

    35. Re:Security through obscurity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nah nah, too much work. To conquer the planet, all you'd need is some basic science and time. Seed the planet with a virus or poison designed to wipe out either the population or reprogram the population to do what you want. Then wait.

      If they came across interstellar space the slow way, then waiting a while will not be a concern.

      Personally I think any race that advanced would use dimensional gates or wormholes and would never bother with all that tedious mucking about in subspace. So I think they would get here a lot faster than we usually assume. But they'd still be very patient.

      But in the end, this whole thing falls into the "Mars needs women" thing. We imagine that they want what we have, because we ourselves value it. We make movies about Mars wanting our women because the women matter to us, or most of us. Or some of us. Whatever. We make movies about aliens wanting our gold, or water, or minerals, or to eat us, because we value these things and assume that they will, too, and will want to take them.

      It is entirely possible that aliens would find nothing of value here. If they can conquer space, if they have the ability to use wormholes or similar, then their science is probably advanced enough to provide them anything they could possibly need, and eating people or mating with our women is probably not on the list.

      I can imagine that they might want to observe and perhaps manipulate and play with us. This is oddly enough exactly what the alien contact reportees have said was going on. Though there is some mating involved apparently.

    36. Re:Security through obscurity? by Jarnin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Decimate us, huh? Thank goodness! You see, Decimate literally means "to reduce by ten percent", or "to kill one of every ten". If an alien asteroid attack on Earth is only going to kill one in ten, I'll take my chances.
      Had you said we'd be annihilated, which means "to destroy completely", then I'd be scared.

    37. Re:Security through obscurity? by ddt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given the complexity and inherent risk of these things, it seems considerably more reasonable to just create artificial life that doesn't need an atmosphere, water, day cycles, and all that organic nonsense.

    38. Re:Security through obscurity? by matty619 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm always perplexed when people make this leap that the human species is war-like and surely no other sufficiently developed species could possibly be warlike. We are what we are because of a competitive evolutionary process. Survival of the fittest involves being warlike and fucking aggressive. Why you assume that any other advanced species evolved in any other way is beyond me.

    39. Re:Security through obscurity? by cgenman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Say that our society went out and discovered that Mars was an earth-like, habitable planet with primitive life upon it. How would we interact with them?

      Chances are, we would see them long before we could actually get there en-masse. Maybe in the 1700's, we would have sensitive enough instruments to see the earth-like surface of the planet. Fast forward 300 years to the year 2K, we can expend a tremendous amount of resources and send a single scouting party over. For 20 or 30 years, the scouting party lives on Mars, gathering data and learning to live on the local climate / floura and fauna. They discover a particular plant that secretes a specific chemical very similar to a highly-expensive cancer drug currently in production on the Earth. A few production ships arrive to harvest the plant and launch the chemical back. A small private science team piggybacks, and finds moe financially rewarding chemicals on the planet. Humanity spreads its fingers, and native life is simply pushed back to the margins. A small shack becomes a 1 mile settlement, becomes a country of it's own. The native plants and animals go from being the dominant form of life on the planet, to living in an ever-shrinking reserve.

      And the more sentient animals might wonder why we didn't just make giant tin cans in the sky and live in those. The fact is, though, that making giant tin-cans in the sky is more expensive than finding viable hunks of rock with usable resourses already present. And if those sentient animals fought back, we'd probably just stop them as easily as we'd stop a groundhog invasion of New York City. Technological superiority doesn't mean winning a fight, it means sweeping unwanted elements off of a table. The natives only win in movies.

      It really all comes down to value. The value of a cylinder, more or less, is just habitable space. The value of a planet includes large volumes of otherwise rare elements or chemicals, biological materials, etc... all conveniently sitting there for the taking, and all of which would be needed to make cylinders anyway.

    40. Re:Security through obscurity? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You seem like a really gay man.

      Of COURSE I mean happy... words never change meanings over time, do they?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    41. Re:Security through obscurity? by hackus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Mmmmm.....I am not so sure about that.

      Remember, we have been using a model of reality for the last say 200 years that well, because it can build planes, rockets and air conditioners and nuclear weapons: The Standard Model that says it is impossible to go to the stars.

      The Standard Model SAYS its very hard to traverse the distances.

      I don't believe that for a minute because this very same model failed to predict 98% of reality in the Universe we live in.

      So I think if we were to scrap the Standard Model and start over, and build it with the express intention of colonizing the stars, we COULD do so.

      The funny thing about systems of knowledge like the standard model, is that they create almost a kind of group think of indoctrinization.

      I mean, you are prevented from thinking about solving problems in a variety of ways because the model says its impossible. I think this is the next step in science.

      If I told you in 1980 that there are different forms of matter and energy (forces) that make up 98% of the universe you would have called me a crack pot because your PhD says its impossible.

      Which is my point. People have too much invested in their fields (time/money) to DARE think differently.

      Is it REALLY a coincidence, that ALL of the revolutionary thinking about reality in the past 100 years came from people totally outside of classical academics and research?

      I mean, really, a patent clerk decides he doesn't like reality so he makes a new description of it for example.

      Newton was the same way, the guy didn't like people, he didn't like academics, was a average (very mediocre to bad) student at Cambridge (didn't talk to anyone) and if Halley didn't happen to stop by (his probably one and true friend he had) Newton probably would have went to his grave with the secrets of Calculus.

      I see this all day long at UW Madison with the people I see. You are threatened you are scared to think differently. You could lose your grant funding, your tenure. You tow the group think line or your out.

      I would not be surprised if a fry cook invents warp drive.

      History I think will prove me right. :-)

      -Hack

      PS: String Theory is a crock.

      --
      Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    42. Re:Security through obscurity? by linguizic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Carl Sagan also said that marijuana would be legalized before 1980. As much as I admire then man, he suffered from an over-optimism that is characteristic of habitual marijuana users of his era.

      --
      Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
    43. Re:Security through obscurity? by syousef · · Score: 3, Funny

      Decimate us, huh? Thank goodness! You see, Decimate literally means "to reduce by ten percent", or "to kill one of every ten". If an alien asteroid attack on Earth is only going to kill one in ten, I'll take my chances.
      Had you said we'd be annihilated, which means "to destroy completely", then I'd be scared.

      Clearly the alien plot to drive us all insane with pedantry started years ago on slashdot.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    44. Re:Security through obscurity? by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      we are probably the most warlike and violent race that has reached rudimentary intelligence in the universe.

      That's a completely unwarranted assumption. We don't even know if there is life anywhere else. let alone intelligent life. And if there are other intelligences, there is no way to make even an intelligent guess as to how warlike or peaceful they may be; any guesses about other intelligences are out of pure ignorance; we have no data whatever.

      You might ponder the fact that almost every technological advance has come from war and violence. Why hasn't any nonviolent earth species reached sentience? And note that most species on this planet are violent.

      We even have violent fauna; thorns, pitcher plants... To think any other sentient beings would be peaceful is laughable. The only data we have is from this planet, and it doesn't bode well.

    45. Re:Security through obscurity? by DESADE · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry fellas. I got this. I saved my Powerbook 5300c from years back. When they come, I'll be ready.

    46. Re:Security through obscurity? by socceroos · · Score: 4, Funny

      Call IBM.

    47. Re:Security through obscurity? by TiberiusMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why you assume that any other advanced species evolved in any other way is beyond me.

      Assuming violence is the only way for evolution to work is like assuming two arms and two legs is the only way evolution can work. We'd have no idea about how their brains evolved, or what circumstances they developed under.

    48. Re:Security through obscurity? by Trogre · · Score: 2, Funny

      Though if they decimated us 150 times we'd be left with $POPULATION*0.9^150, or 821 humans, assuming you start out with six billion.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    49. Re:Security through obscurity? by thaig · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're right and if the word has changed, then it can change back :-) The 1-in-10 is more useful. We have things like annihilate or eradicate or exterminate for the more absolute meaning.

      --
      This is all just my personal opinion.
    50. Re:Security through obscurity? by TimurLeng · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So any threatening species would be dealt with, likely well before they became destructive upon an interstellar basis.

      In your world view the cow is more advanced than the wolf and the lamb more sophisticated than the lion.

      I once read a very interesting Science Fiction story in which an advanced civilization had reached earth and judged the human race wanting.
      But the UN replied, "wait, don't destroy us just yet. Give us time to negotiate our differences away and achieve global peace".

      So they negotiated and negotiated among themselves and after entire weeks of sleepless arguments they finally returned to the threatening aliens and told them: "no more need to unleash your wrath upon us. We've achieved global peace. All weapons will be abolished and all armies of ours dissolved!".

      The alien was quiet puzzled at this development and started to look upon the human ambassador with pity.
      "You misunderstood my meaning. We did not find you wanting for your lack of peacefulness. The galaxy is filled with the bones of the defenseless civilizations we had conquered before yours. What we found you people lacking was the urgency, the furor to fight until either victory or death. We seek out warrior nations like ourselves,to recruit them as auxiliaries for our own wars. W/o weapons or armies, w/o the will to fight in wars, your species is utterly useless to us. Prepare for your destruction human!"
      ----------------
      But I for one think much more highly of us as a species.
      I think we have proven in our treatment of each other (the Firelanders, the North American Indians, Australia's Aborigines, the Armenians, the Jews under Hitler, Rwanda's Genocide and so on and so on), that we have what it takes to become a Galactic menace.

      So I think its the aliens who should be scared shitless of us.
      Just image the devastation we could cause among them if we'd send our TV preachers and missionaries out against them!
      We'd destroy their entire civilization in one round, w/o even having to fire a shot! :-)

      --
      Free will is the illusion that our wits could compensate for our brain's faulty circuitry.
    51. Re:Security through obscurity? by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you give 'the rest of human society' too much credit.

    52. Re:Security through obscurity? by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The simplest method by which to judge species and what measures may be required to control threats implied by them, is the way in which they interact with less advanced species.

      Sorry, that's your own morality creeping into the argument. I would personally like to think this as well, but there's plenty of evidence that species can be relentlessly homogeneous, to the point of killing outliers merely for the sake of being different. And their strength derives from this; take bees or ants as an example.

      Besides planets in reality are pretty crappy resources for any interstellar species, nebula and dust clouds have stupendously huge quantities of material available

      Depends. The thing about planets is you have the benefit of billions of years of gravitational attraction. That kinda' speeds up the process of aquisition. It's a lot harder to scrape billions of light-years of interplanetary distance with some kind of imaginary "stuff scooper" than it would be to just go to a planet where everything's all in one place.

  2. His Master's Voice by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Interesting that I should wake up to find this article when I finished reading Stanislaw Lem's His Master's Voice last night before going to bed. It's one of the earliest books I've read that deals seriously with communications from space. I won't get into the details fo the book but instead pose equally speculative assumptions about advanced life that contradict Hawking (a man much respected in my eyes).

    As humans have "advanced" over the past two thousand years, it is apparent that killing each other is simply not productive. Well, this is apparent to me anyway. And I would argue that although the numbers have probably gone up for homicide on a world wide scale, there is far less nationalistic or religious conflict on the Earth today and the percentages of death related to that have dropped drastically since World War II. Were it not for this movement towards sanity and science, a lot of our technological advances would have been inhibited by 1) the effort it takes to exterminate your neighbor and 2) being killed by your neighbor. While military research brings advancements in other fields, the primary goal is stopping the enemy. Had scientists that invented napalm at Dow Chemical been given the same amount of resources to invent more efficient fuels and engines, I've no doubt they could have.

    Simply put: why is it that we assume an "advanced" civilization means that it is militarily advanced and not ethically advanced? Those two categories are not mutually exclusive and I would argue that any alien race not ethically advanced before becoming militarily advanced will simply continue to focus on killing each other. I will also posit that intergalactic travel is near impossible without the ability to understand anthropology. Using this logic, I would wager that the nomadic roving death squads are no more likely than the aliens in Asimov's Childhood's End that show up and help us technologically as well as ethically (we've still got quite a ways to go in some areas more than others).

    It's hard to agree with Hawking's assumption of aliens as it's more apparent they would simply die out from lack of resources before ever finding their first victims. I suppose all I have to offer is science fiction references since that's all that's being discussed here.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:His Master's Voice by dotancohen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They may be neither militarily advanced nor ethically advanced. They may simply be looking for more resources to exploit. Why assume that they either have a concept of ethics, that their ethics might apply to us, or that taking resources would be unethical in their view?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    2. Re:His Master's Voice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not to be a jerk about it or anything, but Arthur C Clarke wrote Childhood's End. It's the first line of the wikipedia article you linked, so I guess I don't need a citation...:)

    3. Re:His Master's Voice by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why assume that they either have a concept of ethics, that their ethics might apply to us, or that taking resources would be unethical in their view?

      They don't need a "concept of ethics." But there's the basic problem that if they have no problem with taking resources from another civilization, what problem do they have with taking resources from each other? Unless they are invincible they will almost certainly begin by taking resources from each other. If both you and I need a resource and one of us becomes short on it, we engage in conflict unless there is a sense of "ethics" or some basic moral guidelines. They can call it whatever they want but it's just a basic beginning to conflict ... in the wrong places of our world, you can get yourself killed for an iPhone or wallet. Those are resources.

      They may simply be looking for more resources to exploit.

      So tell me, when you're "simply looking for more resources to exploit" where do you start? Looking at those around you who have the resources you need or building a spaceship capable of intergalactic travel and also locating out of the universe a planet that might have the same resources you need? If you find it hard answering that question, read up on resource consumption and distribution in ancient Rome.

      And what makes Earth so automatically special about our resources? I mean, for carbon based life, maybe. But you have to assume if they've been going for that long then they are probably capable of turning worthless planets into gold. A lot of sci-fi novels posit that stars and black holes are going to be the harvested resource for "the down streamers" or any advanced alien race looking for resources to exploit.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    4. Re:His Master's Voice by hansraj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know that projecting human values to any alien life form is heavily criticized, and you can't say with absolute certainty that any (technically advanced) alien life would share our ethics. Nevertheless I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that they would.

      It is safe to assume that any technically advanced life form would be a social life form and would rely on groups as opposed to mere individuals for making leaps in technical progress. And that necessitates evolution of characteristics like empathy, altruism and so on. It is not a stretch to assume that they would project their thoughts on to others the same way we do.

      Of course we can't be 100% sure, but it is still a reasonable thought.

    5. Re:His Master's Voice by gclef · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I dunno. Others have speculated recently (and I happen to agree with them) that the likely space-faring races won't be biological, but mechanical/electrical. An AI that can manufacture it's own replacement parts & direct robots to repair itself could become effectively immortal...which makes the time for the trip between stars less of an issue.

      So, there might only be one...and it might need resources. (In this case, though, it'd likely be more interested in the asteroid belt than us.)

    6. Re:His Master's Voice by gaspyy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not necessarily.

      Aliens could have a hive-like society, similar to ants or bees, where the individual is nothing. Surely you remember Ender's Game and its idea that the conflict was ultimately caused by the difference in society - the aliens could not comprehend an advanced society made of individuals alone. A hive-based society may discard empathy as inefficient. As a side-note, I think this is the direction of the reimagined "V" series - I think the aliens are "bug-like" rather that "lizard-like".

    7. Re:His Master's Voice by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pretty unlikely. Once a mutation arose that caused some of the little green men to beat up the other little green men, the aggressive little green men would soon be the majority.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:His Master's Voice by jav1231 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's equally plausible that they might only apply these moral, ethical, and altruistic ideals to their own as humans have done for generations and continue to do so. Many nations today still think nothing of viewing those who are not their own as less then themselves, be it for nationalistic or religious reasons. I think Hawking's idea isn't without merit. We simply can't assume they're here for good any more than we can assume they're here for ill. But to be safe, assume the worse. I can buy that. Besides, in all those sci-fi movies it's the guy who goes up to shake the alien's hand that dies first! :p

    9. Re:His Master's Voice by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But there's the basic problem that if they have no problem with taking resources from another civilization, what problem do they have with taking resources from each other?

      You are making the fundamental assumption that any random group of aliens would view us as "people". Given, as an example, the number of species we recognize as "people" currently, that's quite a stretch.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re:His Master's Voice by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I find it hard to believe that a race which can build energy-sources powerful enough to travel between galaxies would need any material resources. Surely by that stage they can synthesize any element in any quantity (all except Latinum...)

      Needing more places to live in? That's another story.

      Maybe some rich space-dude would like the Earth as a private holiday villa and he's not too keen on all the annoying/bitey little animals which live here and are busy chopping down the pretty trees and polluting the rolling blue oceans.

      Would you think twice about getting rid of an ant/hornet/wasp nest if it was in your back yard? No? We're the ants/hornets/wasps...

      --
      No sig today...
    11. Re:His Master's Voice by Teancum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I'm not necessarily disputing the argument here, I would like to know what possible resource we might have on the Earth that can't be found much, much more abundantly and in a form much easier to obtain elsewhere that can only be found on the Earth? Here are some common favorites in science fiction stories:

      • Water - Only the most abundant chemical compound in the universe, made up of two of the most common elements in the universe. Even in our own solar system, there are whole worlds made up of mostly water ice and major bodies, like comets, that literally announce their existence with a massive display of water. There may be "local" shortages of water (however you may define it), but it is incredibly common and easy to find this stuff. You certainly wouldn't need to engage in an interstellar or better an intergalactic journey just to get some extra water from little ol' Earth. There is enough water ice in the solar system (in chunks movable with human technology) to completely submerge the surface of Mars with a massive ocean, including Olympus Mons and not even touch the oceans of the Earth. Studies of other stellar planetary systems seem very likely to have the same quantity of free ice and perhaps even more than our relatively older solar system.
      • Meat - This is an argument that simply defies logic.... that somehow the aliens are going to "eat" us. Particularly given that we live in an industrial society, modern humans is one of the worst possible sources of protein that you can come from. We are top predators with a lifetime of accumulated chemicals, heavy metals, and parasites that would be and are lethal to anybody eating that kind of flesh. If an aliens society simply needed the protein for survival, I'm sure there are several rather large food processing corporations that would gladly provide domestic livestock in sufficient quantities to more than satisfy their needs anyway. How many McDonald's Hamburgers do these aliens really want and why is that not sufficient to be sold by.... McDonald's?
      • Unobtainium - More to the point, some sort of rare convergence of ultra rare elements that somehow made the formation of the Solar System unique, and some super-heavy element that also happens to be radioactively stable is found in our Solar System in quantities sufficient to send a massive mining party out to wipe out a species to get that mineral. Again, what possible mineral might this be? I admit that detailed geologic surveys of the whole solar system have yet to be done in significant quantity, but I think we got a pretty good idea of what elements are "out there" and based on stellar spectra we are quite confident that those same elements... at least to Uranium... are in fairly significant quantities.
      • Labor - Sort of back to the meat argument, but this time the aliens are needing "thinking" meat to get everything accomplished. Presuming that these aliens got into space starting from a planet somewhat like the Earth (why else are they coming here?) implies a certain minimum industrial base. More to the point, slavery generally has not been economical and there are usually significant alternatives to slavery even in those human civilizations where it was tried... where ultimately automated machines in some fashion ended up improving the productivity far better than what a slave could produce. When a horse can plow a field for less grain than you can feed a team of people to till and cultivate the same acreage, you use a horse. Again... these aliens are traveling incredible distances... for this?
      • The Earth itself - I'll admit that a planetary body with a liquid water ocean and sufficient atmosphere for prolonged habitation is a rather rare thing, so there may be some desire to seek for habitable planets. Still, for a civilization to send not just a single explorer or representative, but to send a massive invading army, are planets like the Earth really all that r
    12. Re:His Master's Voice by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or hell, they could take both routes, fight each other for resources AND explore space to find uncontested resources. After all Europe wasn't exactly peaceful when Columbus set out to find new resources by sailing to the west and the struggle for supremacy with the neighbors could be quite a reason to invest in resource discovery to gain an upper hand.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    13. Re:His Master's Voice by RebelWithoutAClue · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It would make perfect sense to take the "defenders" (us) out before harvesting the resources in the rest of the system.

      --
      "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
    14. Re:His Master's Voice by cynyr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      in the world of ants, it would seem that some of the large bridges over streams they build would be similar to rockets for us (a transportation means to get to new land). In that sense, even a colony of ants has several different shaped ants in them, guards, queen, workers, offspring/egg care takers. All of them do their job for the good of the colony, hmm sounds like Marxism at work right there. Anyways we steal resources from birds and monkeys all the time, why would this alien see us as different than bird or a horse. For that matter, they may feel that we would make a good source of physical labor, and treat us like horses or donkeys.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    15. Re:His Master's Voice by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It might not be worth sinking this far into the gravity well of the sun.

      I don't think it matters much, even our loudest shout is going to be a galactic whisper, and at the moment, if anybody does hear us and decide to come do something, there isn't much we could do about it.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    16. Re:His Master's Voice by canajin56 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's not supposed to be something appealing about Earth, or our solar system. A fleet of ships travels from one star to the next. FTL and Causality are mutually exclusive concepts, so unless "reality" is meaningless, they will be traveling at sublight speeds. It would take years or decades (or more) to jump between even close stars. So, they strip a solar system bare, and live off those resources as they travel to the next system. The fact that they could get water and uranium and iron and whatever else from Alpha Centauri doesn't help if they already did. And will they leave Earth alone because it has "quaint little natives"? Why. Like us, they probably don't recognize inferior animals as equals. Even if they do think it's wrong to kill us all and strip the Earth bare, that means giving up resources. That makes it harder to travel to the next system. Even if they think it's wrong, won't they just say "Better them than us!" and take it anyway? Then their James Cameron analog can make a movie in 4D about the noble earthling savages they wiped out in their greed.

      A corporation is considered a total and utter disaster if it's only making a shitload of money, but is not growing exponentially. The only way to stave off total economic collapses happening more and more frequently, is exponential pillage. We're starting to feel a bit bad about it here, so, Spaceward Ho! Divide and conquer. Migrant Fleet heads to system, destroys it, builds new fleet. Two fleets head in different directions, destroy two more systems, and continue. There's no other way to survive in an economic system based on derivatives, where exponential growth is the only way to even maintain the status quo. Invest in a fleet, and make a shit load of money. Only, they won't be returning with spoils for centuries or more. But that's OK, current stock investments don't pay off, either. But the share in the fleet will appreciate as news flows in, so you can sell it based on speculation. Or go to derivatives and buy and sell shares in futures of the fleet. Hell, go second order and invest in the futures of the futures. And if one of humanities mining fleets runs into aliens? Well, they COULD leave them alone. But then their stocks would be worthless, those futures would be worthless, those future-futures would be worthless. Economic collapse. Billions starving to death, unable to afford the megatonnes of food rotting in silos. It's the more ethical choice to wipe those aliens the fuck out. (It's the even MORE ethical choice to not have such an incredibly stupid economic system, but suggesting that makes you a socialist).

      Sure, I'm projecting our society on theirs...odds are, to not nuke their planet into desolation, they have to be better people than us. But, it's not like they have to be evil monsters from hell to go around wiping out civilizations they deem inferior. They just have to be big dicks like us. Alone, humans are swell people. But, none of us is as bad as all of us.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    17. Re:His Master's Voice by martijnd · · Score: 3, Funny
      • Entertainment value - A good game of sim earth is worth a thousand empty moons; especially if you have been cruising this arm of the milky way for a couple of million years and can stand any more re-runs of "I love Lucy". Options are "God Mode" , get the dumb natives to worship you and your shiny technologies. "Cloak and Dagger", play this with another out-of-world entity, try to move your favorite civilization into a position of supremacy, and if you fail try to wipe out the planet.
  3. Buzz by That_Dan_Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think he's saying this to generate debate and thought about aliens. It's too late to hide. The radio waves are already on their way. But if he's saying this on a TV show he's trying to generate buzz for it and get people thinking about it. It also leads to the conclusion we need to build SDF-1, thereby getting humans into space.

    Hawking isn't called a genius for no reason. There is another subtle arguement there that we need to get of this planet to start looking for those resources too.

    Etc etc.

    1. Re:Buzz by dtolman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't worry - our radio waves are not on their way - they may go out forever, but the weaken too... sorry to say that you'd have to be by Jupiter with a radio telescope to watch our TV. By the time aliens notice the carrier signals, they'll be in our Oort Cloud. They'll notice the oxygen and methane in our atmosphere first...

    2. Re:Buzz by psnyder · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's too late to hide. The radio waves are already on their way.

      Those radio waves that are beamed into "deep space" degrade and become indistinguishable from the rest of the background electromagnetic radiation just outside our solar system.

      Proxima Centauri, the nearest star, is 4.2 light years away. Our radio waves don't even come close.

      So yeah, SETI... that organization that spends a lot of time listening for and sending radio signals, can only hope to catch something from a ship EXTREMELY close to us. And if the aliens have the capability to get that close to our solar system, you can damn well bet they have the capability to see/scan everything in our solar system and already know we're here.

      So no, it's not too late. One way to get a signal out in the future, is send a massive amount of organic compounds into the sun. Those compounds are not seen naturally in a star, and they can be detected by examining the light through astronomical spectroscopy (a current human technology). Then we wait the light years it takes for the photons to get to them, and see if they notice.

    3. Re:Buzz by ph0rk · · Score: 2, Funny

      It also leads to the conclusion we need to build SDF-1, thereby getting humans into space.

      We need Zor's battleship to crash land on an island in the Pacific first.

      --
      semantics are everything!
    4. Re:Buzz by bmajik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, the argument that an arbitrarily advanced society doesn't need "resources" is silly.

      All work requires energy. Any advanced alien race is constantly expending energy.

      _The_ source of energy in the universe is star fusion. Convertible energy is radiated out from stars at a rate proportional to the size and lifecycle phase of the star, and the collector efficiency & distance from that star.

      IOW, the amount of work an advanced society could do, under normal circumstances, would be limited by how much star energy they could capture and utilize, and that in turn, would be limited by the power output of nearby stars, and how close they stayed to any given star.

      So you have a fairly limiting energy problem, that is frankly an artificial constraint.

      Here's why: all _energy_ comes from star radiation, all non-star _matter_ is a form of energy storage. By exploiting resources, be they asteroids or planets or anything else.. in "matter" form.. a civlization can consume energy at a higher rate than the local star output.. and at a further distance away from a near-by producing star.

      IOW, the consumption of non-radiated-energyresources enables _faster_ travel or _further_ travel. While there may be some _very_ old space-faring society that has realized the "peak entropy" problem and now voluntarily limits itself to consuming energy at the average star-dissapation rate... younger space faring races would not necessarily conform to this self-imposition, and would consume matter -- nature's energy storage batteries -- to fuel their ambitions.

      Assuming you beleive in this dichotemy: the advanced society which artificially limits its energy consumption (and therefore growth), and the transitional society which does not, which is more likely to make an exploratory trip towards Earth? I contend that a society which has written off further expansion does not actively seek to do more exploration.

      So, if we meet somebody, oods are, they consume matter to acheive their goals. We cannot predict which forms of matter are most amenable to their technology and needs, but we can probably assume that they aren't going to park in Solar orbit and just "hang out" until they've soaked up enough rays in "Trickle charge" mode to continue about their business. Not when there is all this matter diversity nearby that they could exploit.

      I'm not saying that they'll see earth, and say, "Yes!! Finally!! Brocoli!" But they may very well say "look! oxygen [the universal propellant oxidizer for chemical propulsion] exists in all 3 forms of matter on the blue planet."

      Or maybe space faring societies, upon seeing a small rocky planet with a gooey core made of molten ferrous liquid... get the same ideas we do when we see a crust deposit of black long-chain hydrocarbon liquid..

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  4. Wow...... by xandercash · · Score: 3, Funny

    That would make a really good science fiction movie....oh, wait.

  5. I've been saying this all along....! by flajann · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I've been saying what Hawking is saying all along. It is sheer folly to think that an advance race went through all the trouble to cross many, many light-years of intergalactic space just to say "Hi".

    The enormity of the effort they would have to mount given the physics of space travel would be rather significant, and at great cost to themselves. The time it would take would depend on how close to the speed of light they can reach. And the physics of THAT means they would have to have the technology to convert matter into energy somehow. Or, it would take them many thousands of years to get here. Either way, it's NOT going to be a friendly housecall, no matter how you shake it.

    The public has in its collective imagination all these SF stories that assumes some way has been found to avert the realities of the physics that we now understand. But I am not confident at all that a way can be found to make interstellar space travel "cheap and affordable", per se. Wormholes, if they even exist, require energies way beyond our imagination, way beyond any civilization would be able to harness, energies at galactic scales or worse, and even at that there is no clear understanding if they would actually be useful for travel.

    We indeed understand a lot today about physics and cosmology, and nothing I've seen to this time would even hint at the merest possibility of anything that could possibly make interstellar travel "cheap and affordable" my mere civilizations throughout the cosmos

    So, I deem it extremely unlikely that Humanity's fantasies about space travel will ever likely be true.

    And thus, on that basis, I would firmly agree with Hawking.

    1. Re:I've been saying this all along....! by garcia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have also been saying this all along but I disagree with you on this point:

      The enormity of the effort they would have to mount given the physics of space travel would be rather significant, and at great cost to themselves.

      Who's to say that they just don't think differently than we do? Just because we have a mental block about a particular bit of physics does not mean that they do too. I find it hard to believe that if they think like we do but have solved the physics problem of near light-speed travel that they wouldn't be able to handle their own natural resources for their population.

    2. Re:I've been saying this all along....! by flajann · · Score: 2, Interesting
      But, by the same token, I don't think we have much to worry about, anyway. I would think that while life may be plentiful throughout the cosmos, intelligent life that has mastered technology to the point of being space-faring would actually be exceedingly rare. Even in our own planet's 4.5-billion year history, it's barely been a hundred years since the Wright Bros. first flight at Kitty Hawk back in 1903. Yuri Gagarin made it into space in the year I was born in -- 1961. Not even quite 50 years that we've been space-faring at all, and a joke to speak of, as we've never had a human beyond the orbit of the the moon.

      Just landing a man on Mars is an enormous effort for our civilization. Mars!!!! One planet over from us! And I'm confident we'll do that someday. And I'm almost equally as confident it'll be done by a country other than the United States. But I digress.

      Now one datapoint -- the Human Civilization -- is hardly enough to bake a theory on, but you can at least see what challenges lie in the wake of becoming space-faring, let alone the chances of evolving an intelligent species that would even care. Humans have been around for 2 million years and only in my lifetime -- quite literally -- have we just put a foot in space.

      My wild-ass guess is that perhaps there may be 5-10 other civilizations in our galaxy capable of space travel at all, and none of them have probably sent any of themselves past their own stellar systems. The physics for them will be the same as the physics for us. So we should just relax and not worry about a V-type or Independence-Day style alien invasion.

      But I hear we'd make great pets anyway.

    3. Re:I've been saying this all along....! by flajann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have also been saying this all along but I disagree with you on this point:

      The enormity of the effort they would have to mount given the physics of space travel would be rather significant, and at great cost to themselves.

      Who's to say that they just don't think differently than we do? Just because we have a mental block about a particular bit of physics does not mean that they do too. I find it hard to believe that if they think like we do but have solved the physics problem of near light-speed travel that they wouldn't be able to handle their own natural resources for their population.

      Mental block? Think about it for a moment.

      Never before have we had so many minds looking at this problem than in our entire history.Today we have a tremendous number of physicists, many yearning to venture into space, and none of them have come up with the solution.

      Applying basic statistics here, the longer it takes, the less likely a solution will be found. If there were a way we would've found it by now, I think. Or be on the edge of finding it.

      So the probability decreases asymptotically with time. Physics is physics. Baryonic matter is baryonic matter. There's only so much you can do with baryonic matter and electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces and gravitation. That is the set of blocks in our "lego construction set" we have to work with.

      Now maybe something more exotic will be discovered by the LHC or future particle experiments, but I strongly doubt it. I don't think it's just that we can't "think out of the physics box". I'm saying that it is extremely unlikely that anything lies outside of that "physics box" that we'd (or any other civilization) find useful for interstellar space travel.

    4. Re:I've been saying this all along....! by flajann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Damn right! Why is this point forgotten? Look at the Voyager probes, okay they're pretty primative in that they were launched right at the beginning of our space story, but they were launched not even to say "hi", let alone just to say it. Look at how much has been spent on the biggest experiement evaah, the LHC, just because of our curiosity. We're most interested in finding out if there's life on a Saturn moon, and that's the driving force for the probes we've sent there... not because we want to mine it!

      You're right. We absolutely would.

      No, we wouldn't. You're forgetting about the economic side of the effort.

      A probe that has barely made it out of our solar system is NOT the same thing as mounting a major effort at interstellar travel, that would require a significant chunk of your civilization's resources, never mind the costs involved. Most people on our planet do NOT think the way we do. Most people think in terms of ROI: "What's in it for me?" Do you think all the governments of our planet would be willing to front such a gargantuan effort with all of the sacrifices that would entail just to travel a few light-years just to say, "Hello?" Did Columbus come to the US just to shake hands and kiss the natives? Or was he looking for an ROI for the efforts and investment and resources it took to cross the oceans of his time?

      Well, I did enjoy being a dreamer a long time ago. But then I woke up.

    5. Re:I've been saying this all along....! by flajann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It is sheer folly to think that an advance race went through all the trouble to cross many, many light-years of intergalactic space just to say "Hi"."

      Yeah cause like we'd never go to great lengths just to cross new boundaries. ;)

      Why don't we have a permanent colony on the Moon yet? When was the last time a human foot stepped around there? And why don't we have someone already on Mars?

      It's simple. Costs. It's not just great lengths for you, it's great lengths at the cost to others. That and the ROI factor. You and I might want to go to great lengths, but who's going to pay for it?

  6. Re:Steven Hawking = Roland Emmerich? by Your.Master · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the unlikely event that it turns out that sentient life is far more probable on planets with the conditions that also support human life (rather than there being a wide variety of conditions, mostly incompatible with human life), then the aliens have found a habitable world, pre-terraformed.

    On the other hand, if our needs are orthogonal to their needs, maybe we're a masterfully convenient technologically backward slave race, intelligent enough to do their dangerous harvesting tasks without consuming any resources that they themselves need.

    Or maybe the aliens are just pricks.

  7. They're not coming for us. by Oceanplexian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think we vastly overestimate how important we are.

    An alien race isn't going to travel light-years to have a cup of tea any more than we would travel to a remote corner of the earth to make peace with the native bacteria.

  8. Obligatory by PlasmaEye · · Score: 4, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new aliens-in-massive-ships overlord.

  9. Don't panic by Bearhouse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The way things are going, in a few more centuries either we'll have wiped ourselves out, or Earth will be a massive polluted desert...

  10. But they're made of meat by stox · · Score: 2, Funny

    Humans, the other red meat.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dk9z6Ul4X4

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  11. Pathetic Earthlings... by cherokee158 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Pathetic earthlings. Hurling your bodies out into the void, without the slightest inkling of who or what is out here. If you had known anything about the true nature of the universe, anything at all, you would've hidden from it in terror." --Ming the Merciless

  12. No point in raiding Earth by gatkinso · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are pleanty of other resources out there, why come all they way here to get them?

    It would be like filling your car full of fuel, driving to the airport (past several orchards, forests, landfills, and supermarkets), filling up a 767, flying to Tahiti in it, then raiding a village for its produce.

    It just wouldn't be worth it. Not saying they wouldn't be interested, just that the expense and effort to take our stuff would not even be close to break even.

    The only reason I could see for them to actually come here are for biologicals. Perhaps petroleum which is also biological actually. Basically us, the plants, all of the bugs, the germs. And that is only useful to them if the biomass is is similar and compatible to theirs.

    Quite frankly they could probably produce their own Earth sized biomass with less energy than it would take for them to to transport such infrastructure here.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:No point in raiding Earth by d474 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I completely agree - the idea that Earth has unique resources is both a false and anthropocentric view. The elements that make Earth are seen everywhere in systems all around us. Heck, they could just hang out in the Oort Cloud and mine that for a few million years until they got bored.

      And I see no scientific basis to assume that our bodies/minds would serve any useful purpose or a superior intelligence, despite what Hollywood tells us.

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  13. I'm not worried. by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've got my towel.

    1. Re:I'm not worried. by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm pretty sure that the real guide has "Kindle" printed on the top...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  14. But we have Powerbooks, right? by droopus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Jeez, come on the technology for defeating them came out in 1997! Didn't any of you see Independence Day? We already know from this fine documentary that all we need is a Wall Street G3 and we can easily penetrate their puny firewalls. Sure they have intergalactic travel capabilities, and ships that can hover over entire cities (without char-broiling them with hover-exhaust, mind you...) but WE have 14.4 modems, Mac OS and the Fresh Prince of BelAir.

    What's to worry about?

    --
    "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
    1. Re:But we have Powerbooks, right? by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's a small problem with your plan. Of the two PowerBook Wall Street G3 avaiable on eBay, the first one is complete; however , it does not work, and the seller has no idea what the problems are. It could have multiple issues. And the second one is also complete; however it does not work and the seller also has no idea what the problems are. It could have multiple issues. Obviously the keyboard is bad.

      We're doomed!

      Dooooooooooomed!!!!!*

      * extra !'s added for emphasis.

  15. Earth Resources? by EmagGeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ummm.. if they have intergalactic travel capability, they would be able to get any resource they needed from a much nearer source. After all, every resource we use here on earth is available in vastly larger quantities elsewhere in the Universe than on our tiny little rock. Every resource here came from somewhere else, remember?

    The argument that they would come here looking for resources is simply asinine.

  16. Self-unawareness by dr.g · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Our species, up to and including our most advanced thinkers*, is too wedded to unexamined assumptions and too fond of creating self-referential aphorisms and/or ironic maxims to realistically model first contact with non-human species.

    *-apparently.

    --
    "To be fair, I was left completely unsupervised." ~Anon
  17. Kill Them And Eat Them by littlewink · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That was the conclusion of a Playboy interview concerning aliens years ago (I don't remember who they were interviewing). The analogy was, if I remember correctly, to the Piraha people of South America, who did just that to the Spanish invaders. As a consequence the Piraha were left alone for another hundred years, while all other triebes who allowed the Spanish in were devastated.

  18. He's finally gone off the rails by pyalot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is a statement about the probability of hostile and resource hungry alien life visiting us, it hinges on a lot of unknowns and miniscule probabilities. The conditions are:

    * Intelligent alien life exists near us in time and space
    * They perform interstellar spacefaring for migratory reasons
    * They survived resource depletion of their entire home system
    * Earth is in one of the nearest systems they choose for strip mining next
    * Earth is more interesting in our solar system then the gas planets, the kuiper belt, the moon, mercury, venus, the sun and the asteroid belt.
    * Their technology which enabled them to cross interstellar distances hasn't produced independence of extensive resources as a by product
    * They are hostile and their inbred aggression somehow didn't result in them going extinct long before they reach other solar systems
    * Their inbred aggression also hasn't led them to be fighting some war with somebody as capable as them
    * They've not had any contact with any civilization they haven't quite wiped out, which would've produced another war as a by product, which they'd also survived.

    There are quite a few unknowns in it, but looking at all the conditions that must be unequivocally *true*, it's quite unlikely we'll ever see that kind of alien around our neighborhood (or at least before we've managed to wipe ourselves out)

  19. We should hide from Sterilizer civilizations by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I come to the same conclusion as Hawking - that we should try to be a quiet civilization - but not for the same reasons.

    The fact that we haven't detected advanced life in all of our SETI searching, and the fact that our solar system has not been visited by an alien probe (see Fermi Paradox) is some evidence that our galaxy has a "sterilizer civilization" - which is a pretty straightforward concept.

    If two civilizations begin interstellar colonization in our galaxy, their spheres of expansion are bound to intersect in the future. As they will largely be competing for the same resources (sources of energy differential), some sort of conflict is inevitable. But a conflict at this scale would be so horrible that any reasonable civilization would want to avoid it at all costs. This reasoning makes me think that any suitably advanced, reasonable civilization will be a sterilizer civilization: For the moral purpose of preventing great suffering, they will sterilize any technological civilization before they begin their interstellar colonization. Being rational, they will do this in the most efficient way possible: They will send a robotic probe which will duplicate itself in our solar system, and this autonomous army will wipe out all technological life and monitor our system to make sure that none re-emerges. Since sending even a small payload at great interstellar distances requires great energy, the rational sterilizer civilization will choose a speed for the probe that will bring it to its target safely before their interstellar colonization phase begins, but not much earlier. It is quite possible that such a probe is on its way to us right now, but won't arrive for another thousand years.

    On the very unlikely scenario that we are somehow the first technological civilization in our galaxy, I think that we have an ethical obligation to become a sterilizer civilization ourselves. Everyone now wishes that somebody killed Hitler when he was a baby. It would have prevented great suffering. Like Hawking, I think it's inevitable that if contact is allowed to occur between two colonizing civilizations, the result will be catastrophic on a scale that will make the casualty count of a nuclear war seem like a rounding error. So of course there are ethical downsides of sterilizing a budding, intelligent civilization, just like there are downsides to killing the still-innocent baby Hitler. But I think the refusal to do this would be far more monstrous. The costs could be mitigated by meticulously recording all information about the culture and biology of the extinguished life, or perhaps even saving some specimens who will be safely contained in some sort of a galactic zoo.

    So how should we react if there is a sterilizing probe on its way to get us? We have to begin our interstellar colonization before the probe gets here. I don't think it makes much sense to try to raise up a defense, because we can't even guess at the mechanism of such a probe. One thing it might do is to create a tiny black hole and drop it into the sun. (Or perhaps the probe just is a small black hole set to collide with the sun in a thousand years or so.) At this point, we are still a very vulnerable civilization, and will remain so until we have covered a substantial part of the galaxy. Also, we should be working hard on the technology for an effective sterilizer probe, just in case SETI does eventually reveal an alien civilization. I know it's "no fun" to kill aliens before we ever meet them, but I think the ethical costs of not doing so are unacceptable.

  20. Greg Bear called by gatkinso · · Score: 2, Funny

    He wants his story back.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:Greg Bear called by listentoreason · · Score: 5, Informative

      Reference to The Forge of God, for those unfamiliar with it. Postulates a universe with three types of civilizations; Sterilizers, in the phraseology used above, naive civilizations that reveal themselves to the sterilizers and are annihilated, and then a very loose consortium of non-Sterilizers who band together for mutual defense. This third category hides from its own members, effectively using anonymous communication to coordinate defense and response to the sterilizers. The later group is actually revealed in his follow-on novel, Anvil of Stars.

  21. Maybe they're scared of us too? by theolein · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Stephen Hawking's assumption is that we should be thinking carefully about advertising our presence in the universe because any Alien visitors might be like Columbus discovering the America's in 1492. I think he most certainly has a point, but what about another viewpoint, where Aliens take a look at us and what we have done in our history of contact with new civilisations, realise what the implications for them would be if we were to meet them, and decide that a pre-emptive attack to exterminate all of humanity is probably their safest course of action?

    There is a particularly depressing science fiction book called The Killing Star, which describes exactly such a premise. The story is depressing because only a tiny group of people actually survive the devastation to flee in utter silence from the solar system. The method used to exterminate humanity is absurdly simple. No huge ray-guns, no huge bombs, or poison or any such thing, just objects accelerated to 99% the speed of light, so-called relativistic kill-vehicles. Almost impossible to stop because even if you do detect them coming, they're so close behind their own light signal that there wouldn't be much time to do anything about it.

    This is the assumption that would worry me the most, I think. any alien civilisation intelligent enough to understand what we are would be intelligent enough to understand how dangerous we could be to them.

    1. Re:Maybe they're scared of us too? by kinabrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But seriously, if there are alien life forms, we don't even know that we'd be on the same scales as them.

      They could be a hundred meters tall or they could be microscopic. And they could perceive time in an extremely delayed manner(with our seconds feeling like hours to them) or an extremely accelerated manner(with our hours feeling like seconds to them).

      We don't know that the things on our earth that we consider natural resources are the same things that an alien civilization would consider natural resources. Humanity's waste products might be the things the aliens most precious needs, or their waste products might be things we could eat as food. Maybe they could eat dirt.

      I think that hiding makes sense until we have the capability for travel between solar systems, specifically because there is a possibility that aliens encountered would pose a danger to us, but to naturally assume that whichever ones we encountered would want to do things that would harm us seems a little too paranoid.

      Any group that is capable of such travel is likely to get their energy from somewhere, but even in our own solar system, is earth the biggest source of energy? Jupiter alone would likely provide millions of times the amount of power that could be obtained from Earth, and wouldn't have the danger of infection from Earth's bacteria and viruses. And the sun provides unmeasurable amounts of power compared to Earth. And even the sun isn't a large star.

      Compared to many others, our solar system would be like a crumb to any civilization searching for resources.

      And one last thing I wonder about: Is humanity's fear of extraterrestrial intelligence based on humanity's own instinct of survival of the fittest? And if so, is it reasonable to guess that other forms of intelligence would have such instinct? And would they even perceive us as competition? Or would they have out-evolved that need?

      It makes sense to be cautious and to attempt to not be found, but it's also good to have some perspective. We have no idea about the motivations of any intelligence that would contact us or come here.

  22. What...the...fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everyone now wishes that somebody killed Hitler when he was a baby.

    No, they really don't. The common question which you've heard, "if you could go back in time and kill Hitler as a baby, would you?" is meant to generate ethical debate, and the answer is not meant to be obvious. In fact, with the same fervor that you would use in answering "yes" to that question, I would answer "no." Killing someone for crimes they have not yet committed is simply unacceptable in my world view, and life itself isn't as important to me as holding to such moral guidelines.

    In other words, I'd more than willing to accept the extinction of the human race over condoning the brutal "sterilization" of other sentient species. A species such as the one you describe isn't worth protecting.

  23. Re:Steven Hawking = Roland Emmerich? by houghi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or perhaps they are a humanoid species that now only has female nymphomaniacs super-models that needs men to let their planet survive AND they dig nerds. (There must be a movie about this somewhere)

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  24. Re:Can we hide at all? by karnal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But isn't our viewpoint of what molecules could sustain life perhaps a bit short-sighted? If we're looking for planets that may support human life, then that's a possible problem. There could be lifeforms out there that don't particularly do well in our atmosphere and conditions. Of course, choosing our planet as a place to visit could be detrimental to their health.....

    --
    Karnal
  25. BRILLIANT! by denzacar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That sounds like a great way to get "sterilized" yourself by:

    a) your own probes turned against you by the civilizations that you intended to "sterilize" OR by a computer glitch,
    b) by a civilization or civilizations that you have not yet met but who have already heard about your reputation,
    c) by a civilization that is way more developed than yours - as nobody likes living next door to a psycho,
    d) getting your civilization torn from inside by your own people or their psychoses due to the fact that not everyone is a heartless bastard willing to condone to a xenocide or two or dozen.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  26. Re:You are missing the point by Bandman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Meh, it's habitable because we grew up here. Anyone else might not like it so much.

    Sort of like Jersey.

  27. Excerpt from Aphelion VII's Daily Newscast by Becausegodhasmademe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    New species discovered on planet in hitherto insignificant Sol system!

    Zarglwellian explorers discovered a species of egotistical bipeds with limited intelligence on a planet orbiting the Sol star yesterday morning. First contact was made in the Earth town of Lamesa, Texas, where intrepid Apheliousian space explorer Taivarg Artxe beamed down to the surface of the planet to be met by a collection of adorable beings armed with what appeared to be unsophisticated projectile weapons.

    After initial greetings were exchanged, Taivarg explained to the bipeds using universal heiroglyphics that he was on an interstellar quest to find new and exciting crusine to offer to customers of his francise of fast food resturants. He announced to the collected bipeds that he had intended to eat them, and if they were sufficiently tasty, round up and cull his species before sending their remains to resturants around the universe, but he instead thinks that there's more profit marketing the human species as novelty pets for the children of Aphelion, and they should be thankful that their species will be used to bring happiness to billions of Aphelion's children instead of used for food.

    So children, look out for new bipedal hooman pets, coming soon to a pet shop near you!

  28. So far, nothing to see here by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've been monitoring my Sub-Etha Sens-O-Matic iPad application, bought from the Sirius Cybernetic Corporation and it hasn't indicated the presence of any spacecraft in Earth orbit for some weeks now. And if and when it does, I won't panic. I'll switch to the Guide app, with its large friendly letters and it will tell me everything that I need to do.

  29. disappointed in hawking by farble1670 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the galaxy is full of natural resources. if you have mastered inter-stellar travel you can get to all of them ... mining asteroids or non-habitable planets is not a problem. same with energy. aliens don't need planet-based fossil fuels. they have nuclear fission of course and can mine the raw materials for that from gas giants which are again plentiful.

    further, if they have figured how to live for tens or hundreds of years, the time required to cross inter-stellar distances, in space habitats, they aren't interested in our "habitable" planet. earth is most likely toxic by their standards.

    so, there's not a practical reason for them to subjugate us. that leaves the possibility that they are just violent for the sake of violence. that's extremely unlikely though, as they managed as a species to survive together long enough on their planet to develop space travel.

    that all being said, there's still a small chance that whatever aliens find us would for some reason do us harm. there is also of course a good chance they would do us *good*. a species that possess the technology for inter-stellar travel could gift us even their simplest technologies and can get humanity over this bump in the road we are facing now. for example, nuclear fission reactors would give the world clean, plentiful energy.

    considering how humanity is going and it's chances of survival, alien contact would be an incredible bit of luck for us now.

  30. Not apparent to everybody by postermmxvicom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it is apparent that killing each other is simply not productive. Well, this is apparent to me anyway.

    The inventors of the following all thought their inventions would end war:
    Smokeless gun powder
    Airplane
    Atomic Bomb


    But those are *military* weapons..of course they won't end war...consider also:
    The Television

    It makes the list. If we could only learn about other cultures, we wouldn't want to go to war. Mankind seems to have a penchant for turning every invention into a way to wage more efficient war. What if someone invented a cheap way to feed everybody? Well, congratulations, you've also invented a cheap way to feed armies. They can now fight war better.

    Perhaps the alien will be like us, in this way.

    Technology and philosophy seem to have a less than perfect track record for enlightening us...

    --
    One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"
  31. Planetary thinking detected. by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they need resources, they don't need to talk to us. They can be out there stealing our asteroids without our bothering them until we're out there also. A single asteroid has more metals than we can mine here. Actually, they'd probably find the metals under our crust to be useful. So they should put some asteroids together and start chipping (splashing) pieces off the planets until they've broken them back down into separate rocks. The thin film over the surface of our planet won't be any bother, really.

  32. Annihilation by thaig · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Given the past history of contacts between "more" and "less" advanced peoples it is ridiculously optimistic to believe that they will be nicer than us.

    We, for example, are inconceivably more complicated and "advanced" than ants but we still step on them.

    --
    This is all just my personal opinion.