Yeah nice one, another scryer with his crystal ball. And by the way, I never said China was a slave owning culture, that was an exampli gratia of cultural low ground. Try harder. Try again.
errr... Darkman, that was not he was referring to.
I'll let him answer that one, if you don't mind. Its too late in the day to be backtracking over an obvious meaning like that, however.
Do you really think in China, ppl only think that they are losing faces because they have worse cars or sth similiar? If so, you know too little about china, you are narrow-minded and ignorant...
Do you realise that this comment makes little to no sense? Are you chinese, by any chance?
Well to qualify my remark, I should say that the concept of face as it is commonly understood by western cultures (ie the Japanese concept of face) doesn't exist in China. What you have is more of a keeping up with the Joneses, who has the better ferrari sort of thing, which exists everywhere, and is not unique to China, nor to asians. Was that not what you were referring to?
I call bullshit. I've lived in China for almost half a decade now, I speak Mandarin at a nearly native level, and I can tell you that face means a great deal to the Chinese. You are guilty of the very mistake you accuse the OP of making: conflating Japanese and Chinese culture.
Well I honestly don't know where you've been hiding for the last five years, so I can't call anything, but thats because I prefer to stick to the facts I know. Face means as muich to the Chinese as it does to a westerner, in that no one likes to be made to look a fool. The OP was referring to the convoluted and elaborate rules of "face" present in Japanese culture, of which you appear to be totally unaware. If you had been aware, you wouldn't have made that comparison.
and without knowing anything at all about you I would bet a great deal that it's nearly zilch.
I'm not going to get in a pissing match about levels of Mandarin, you seem to be more full of urine than me; you appear to be attacking me for a full paragraph there without any basis whatsoever, except that your opinions conflict with my observations. Thats called an ad-hominem. And for the record, I speak over eight languages with a varying degree of fluency, including some I can almost guarantee you have never heard of.
Mandarin has so many face-related terms and sayings it is absolutely staggering.
So has English. Egg on his face, brass balls, guts, gung ho, I could give you a few hundred. Your point?
the Chinese "treat each other like shit", or somesuch, but to me this is a classic example of a westerner using western metrics of politeness and propriety to judge the actions of people with a fundamentally different cultural background.
Treated like shit is treated like shit. Just because you were raised up in a community of slave owners doesn't make it right.
There is a fascination with all things Japanese in the geek community -- I'll admit I don't understand it well myself... but I'm frequently told by all sorts of people that the Japanese are exceptionally polite and well mannered.
Hot chicks and cosplay. Yes its a simplistic way of looking at a culture. It is not the entirety of their views however and you would do well to educate yourself as to what those views are before you go making accusations. Thats what I would call a tremendously two dimensional way of looking at "the geek community".
the percentage of assholes in any particular group is relatively constant. What makes a person an asshole is their intent -- their knowing willingness to insult, degrade, or upset others.
Not only is that not true, it occurs to me that people tend to be assholes based on how they view you. So your metrics here are off from the start. But carry on.
The same situation, but in the West: exactly the same words are exchanged, but the listener becomes tremendously upset, because in the context of western culture, saying such a thing is a violation of accepted social norms and as such only someone with malicious intent would say them.
Bollocks. Here in Ireland, you want to hear some of the locals, they would make a sailor blush. Thats also part of western culture, because you see the west consists of more than just America... Are we back to those two dimensional views?
demonstrating, I hope, that it is not that the Japanese are polite per se but rather that Westerners observing them lack the necessary knowledge to accurately describe them as such.
Why are we running down the Japanese now? Why are they even in this discussion? And the chinese have just as much of the same problem, during saint patricks day they have a great laugh at all the Irish running around wearing green hats. If you have lived in China, you'll know what that means. Not that anyone gives a rats ass over here.
Believe me when I say that the concept of face is important to the Chine
To be honest I put Falun Gong in the same bucket as scientology, another cult of personality, so in a way I can see why it is being suppressed by the Chinese. Not that I support killing anyone for their beliefs, but it is the time-honoured solution, and apparently one of those few traditions China has not let go of...
Nah you're thinking about Japan. Face doesn't matter a damn to the Chinese, they left that behind along with the bowing after the "popular revolution", too like the older imperialistic ways (I know whereof I speak, I learned most of my Mandarin in China). Whats happening here is that China has been believing its own propaganda too much, and honestly believed the rest of the world would bend over because of the innate superiority of their offering and the fact that China is the centre of the world. Lollers. Now the harsh reality is catching up, they are throwing a tantrum.
Its really quite entertaining to watch the heavy handed buffoons they have in charge over there try to maneuver on the world stage; less bull in china shop than one legged man in a three legged race. Apologies to those whose sensibilites are offended by these facts, having been raised on the mysterious ways of the orient served up with a big dollop of hollywood fat, but there you have it.
Its like trying to put a celebrity in jail, won't happen.
Nope, its not. The RIAA etc. are what celebrities hide behind in order to prosecute pirates and the like. That same dissociation is now going to be a serious liability here. They aren't the rock stars, they are the bouncers. If I was the injured party in this case I would take the inevitable seven figure out of court settlement and tell them to shove it somewhere south of the border sans lube, and request the heads of the execs on a silver platter. These yahoos are out of control, and as they are so fond of pointing out, an example needs to be made.
Okay I'm going to pull these two threads into one here; first of all the underlying premise of MAD is correct according to current standards. However it is really only a matter of time before effective countermeasures are developed against ICBMs. Once that occurs, the MAD situation is gone, and its business as usual. Maybe something more horrifying yet than thermonuclear destruction will arise; and in its place will come more countermeasures. And thats before we even get into space, which brings a wide variety of new arenas and possibilities to compete.
Also, I'd like to point out that I don't equate non-violent tendencies with stagnation; I simply displayed the evidence of history, which, as I said, leads one to the conclusion that aggressive groups progress faster than non aggressive. Your example of the Japanese is well and good, but 60 years in a highly artifical environment isn't much of an example. And having had their funding removed, they are once again trying to increase their military strength (returning to the natural environment).
You really have no evidence upon which to base your assertions. Whether or not you would be around to collect your bet doesn't make you more right.
Also I fully expect to have my brain transplanted to a tank long before that happens, and be controlling my army of robotic minions from my deep underground polar lair, hidden from the prying eyes of the death dealing extraterrestrial invaders, until my glorious return to the surface with their stolen technology, at which time sir, I'll be glad to pry your fossilised five dollars from your calcified skeletal grasp. No, the other kind of tank. I'll keep the eyebrows though.
The problem with having no majority operating system is that you can no longer build a general purpose computer that does everything.
Er such a computer does exist, and is used every day by millions of people, and lots of OSes work just dandy on it. Oh and you're taking away from the underlying fact that a corporate monoculture breeds laziness and inefficency; par example, MS with all its billions and thousands of developers, developers, developers, should be lashed with a paddle for not getting everything 100% right by this stage. And yes, it is perfectly possible to do so; not by taking the million monkeys approach which they seem to be doing however.
We simply do not have a culture of a government that oversteps it's boundaries, nor a culture of hostile dealings with other countries.
Except for those forced sterilisations there. You know, against the rebellious.
Ah Sweden, also the place to be if you want to sexually abuse animals. Bestiality on the rise? Nice.
Those of mixed race, low intelligence or with physical defects underwent forced sterilization by the state in order to prevent such qualities from being passed on. However, there is evidence that sterilization extended even to those who were merely rebellious, promiscuous or did not fit in somehow.
Spyware by its very name is not desireable on a computer. No one wants it there, except obviously its makers. The problem that arises is when this spyware is running invisibly, and with no easy way to uninstall it (cool web search anyone?), even assuming the user ever finds out it is there. I'd call the fact that spyware manufacturers can produce parasitic software definetly indicative of defective code.
What gets me about all this is why MS is even releasing an antispyware program... wouldn't they be better off patching their own code? Its like someone trying to sell you repairs to their broken product. Yes I know its free - for now.
So "war" as we know it will become obsolete. Is that what you are saying?
I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
What about Genghis Khan. How in the world is he an example of a pacifist stagnating for millions of years?
Hes an example of an aggressor riding roughshod over stagnated populations, introducing such technological innovations as the firearm for example.
The question isn't on what grounds did they unite and become peaceful (internally). The question is, have they stagnated?
But they aren't in a stable equilibrium. There are hostile or at the very least competitive external forces promoting innovation and growth.
Ok, maybe competition isn't bad, but I see no reason why we must necessarily fight to progress.
Neither do I, but at the end of the day thats how it seems to pan out. Call it human nature if you like, but I don't think so. The fact is, to remove competition for resources, the most straightforward and permanent method is to kill your competitor.
The preponderance of evidence is distinctly in favor of larger and larger federations and unions. At some point, our eyes will collectively turn to outer space looking for a new enemy and we'll begin to realize how absolutely hopeless and pointless it would be to try to fight them.
The battlefield shifts, as I said. As for realising how outgunned we are, you assume we'll ever know we are under attack before the lights go out. Its not a sense of crushing despair, its a sense of crushing.
The chances of meeting another intelligent species which is at or near our own level of advancement to meaninfully compete with is next to nil.
I agree. To be honest, I'm not sure what your point is here. I'm saying that its likely that the most technologically advanced species will be aggressive and warlike, you are saying that past a certain level, enlightenment descends for some reason and peace breaks out all over. I'm saying that I have all of history to support my position, you appear to have optimism on your side. And while that is laudable, its just not realistic. I'm a big fan of reality, me, and while I have no objections to optimism or pessimism per se, I make my decisions based on the facts as they appear to be.
The my argument stands. We can only assume that other intelligent life is peaceful and seek to be peaceful with them.
I seriously have no idea where you pulled that conclusion from. Just because they aren't attacking us doesn't mean they are enlightened and peaceful. Maybe a rival gas giant race wants to wipe them out and zaps a few of our stars, whoops humanity is collateral damage.
How would you compete with a species that is hundreds, thousands, and possibly millions of years more advanced that us... AND warlike?
Whoever said you could? In my estimation humanity would be completely wiped out in such a conflict. Life is hard. The only saving grace we might possibly have is that they might not require similar resources to us, life could have taken any number of shapes and sizes. For all we know the dominant intelligence in the Galaxy could be gas giant based, and would never have any interest in us at all. The only reason they might attack us would be for target practice. Who knows, that might be enough of a reason.
How many more world wars can we sustain before we either detroy ourselves or knock ourselves back into the bronze age?
When open war is no longer a feasable option, the battlefield merely shifts, as history has shown us (for example the cold war).
But you have very little to base this prediction on.
Except, for example, Genghis Khan. I'm sure a few hundred other examples could be applied.
Look at Europe, for example. They've FINALLY found peace after hundreds of years of nearly constant warring.
Sixty years of peace hardly qualifies as a good example. And I should point out that the formation of the EU began on economic grounds, in the face of a far more competitive US.
Look at Japan. They have almost no military.
Japan has no military because it is under the aegis of the US, with US bases and forces in place to protect it. Furthermore is has received massive amounts of foreign aid from the US to prop up its economy, in the name of being a bulwark against communist China, aid which extended until relatively recently. Now that the aid has ceased, guess what? They are jockeying for their own military forces again.
So I don't buy this idea for a second that we must continue fighting and competing with our brother in order to avoid "stagnation."
Oh I didn't say that. I'm just pointing out the iron hard evidence to the contrary. Frankly I really don't have an opinion on the matter, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
And if we go out into space with guns blazing, they might just decide to squash us like annoying bugs.
I completely agree. Therefore the likelihood of us getting squashed like bugs is quite high, I reckon.
I'm sure someone already knows we are here.
I'm not sure where you get that certainty from; unless you have access to some information the rest of us don't possess, I'd say rather the chances are extremely high in the opposite direction, based on what I know.
In summary I should say I am as pro-peace as the next man, and I think war is an evil that must be stamped out, and soon. The preponderance of evidence is distinctly in favour of aggressive expansionist cultures gaining the upper hand technologically however.
Seems to me that some form of pacifism would pretty much be a necessity for any intelligent species to survive beyond a certain technological threshhold
I've heard this before, and the reasoning is a bit suspect. I mean, do you think its coincidence that the greatest advances in technology were achieved during times of war (hot or cold)? I certainly don't. Chances are that the most advanced species are the most competitive or warlike, and the pacifists reach a state of equilibrium (stagnation) with their environment for a few million years before the other races find them and wipe them out.
(i.e. our radiosphere is actually easily visible when viewing the entire galaxy.)
This would be the same Galaxy that we recently discovered we had entirely the wrong shape for? I wouldn't underestimate the staggering immensity of our ignorance at this stage (note this doesn't mean we are stupid, just not educated enough yet), and any efforts to realistically predict alien intelligence or lack thereof are going to come up against that barrier. To whit I say, all bets are off.
Assuming that the only things in space were earth and the receiver, I would agree with you. However there really isn't much remarkable about our star or position (as far as I know), and there is also diffusion due to interstellar dust to consider, so even if a signal were received, the odds of it being intelligible or even resembling the construct of an advanced society are incredibly small. Not to mention on an interstellar scale it is quite likely that it might be mistaken for an emission from the sun itself. So not only are there many more interesting things in the sky, whatever we do send out would need to be received by a device directly pointed at earth, listening on the correct wavelengths. I daresay even a direct focused laser communication would have difficulty being received on that scale.
I still think that somewhere out there, a superior communication method to radio exists, much as radio on earth was found to be superior to telegraphs, and they superior to the pony express. In fact chances are there are several levels of communication ability beyond radio, so the quantum vibration guys are completely uninterested in the radio comms, and the wormhole wave fellows are chortling at them from their lofty vantage, while the Heim-space dimensional curvers just don't see the point in mingling with the wormhole riff-raff.
A concern I have is that we discover some new and better means of communication, and inadvertently let everything in the universe know we are here, drawing all manner of unwelcome attention (cf Cortez, Incas).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah nice one, another scryer with his crystal ball. And by the way, I never said China was a slave owning culture, that was an exampli gratia of cultural low ground. Try harder. Try again.
errr... Darkman, that was not he was referring to.
I'll let him answer that one, if you don't mind. Its too late in the day to be backtracking over an obvious meaning like that, however.
Do you really think in China, ppl only think that they are losing faces because they have worse cars or sth similiar? If so, you know too little about china, you are narrow-minded and ignorant...
Do you realise that this comment makes little to no sense? Are you chinese, by any chance?
Well to qualify my remark, I should say that the concept of face as it is commonly understood by western cultures (ie the Japanese concept of face) doesn't exist in China. What you have is more of a keeping up with the Joneses, who has the better ferrari sort of thing, which exists everywhere, and is not unique to China, nor to asians. Was that not what you were referring to?
I call bullshit. I've lived in China for almost half a decade now, I speak Mandarin at a nearly native level, and I can tell you that face means a great deal to the Chinese. You are guilty of the very mistake you accuse the OP of making: conflating Japanese and Chinese culture.
... but I'm frequently told by all sorts of people that the Japanese are exceptionally polite and well mannered.
Well I honestly don't know where you've been hiding for the last five years, so I can't call anything, but thats because I prefer to stick to the facts I know. Face means as muich to the Chinese as it does to a westerner, in that no one likes to be made to look a fool. The OP was referring to the convoluted and elaborate rules of "face" present in Japanese culture, of which you appear to be totally unaware. If you had been aware, you wouldn't have made that comparison.
and without knowing anything at all about you I would bet a great deal that it's nearly zilch.
I'm not going to get in a pissing match about levels of Mandarin, you seem to be more full of urine than me; you appear to be attacking me for a full paragraph there without any basis whatsoever, except that your opinions conflict with my observations. Thats called an ad-hominem. And for the record, I speak over eight languages with a varying degree of fluency, including some I can almost guarantee you have never heard of.
Mandarin has so many face-related terms and sayings it is absolutely staggering.
So has English. Egg on his face, brass balls, guts, gung ho, I could give you a few hundred. Your point?
the Chinese "treat each other like shit", or somesuch, but to me this is a classic example of a westerner using western metrics of politeness and propriety to judge the actions of people with a fundamentally different cultural background.
Treated like shit is treated like shit. Just because you were raised up in a community of slave owners doesn't make it right.
There is a fascination with all things Japanese in the geek community -- I'll admit I don't understand it well myself
Hot chicks and cosplay. Yes its a simplistic way of looking at a culture. It is not the entirety of their views however and you would do well to educate yourself as to what those views are before you go making accusations. Thats what I would call a tremendously two dimensional way of looking at "the geek community".
the percentage of assholes in any particular group is relatively constant. What makes a person an asshole is their intent -- their knowing willingness to insult, degrade, or upset others.
Not only is that not true, it occurs to me that people tend to be assholes based on how they view you. So your metrics here are off from the start. But carry on.
The same situation, but in the West: exactly the same words are exchanged, but the listener becomes tremendously upset, because in the context of western culture, saying such a thing is a violation of accepted social norms and as such only someone with malicious intent would say them.
Bollocks. Here in Ireland, you want to hear some of the locals, they would make a sailor blush. Thats also part of western culture, because you see the west consists of more than just America... Are we back to those two dimensional views?
demonstrating, I hope, that it is not that the Japanese are polite per se but rather that Westerners observing them lack the necessary knowledge to accurately describe them as such.
Why are we running down the Japanese now? Why are they even in this discussion? And the chinese have just as much of the same problem, during saint patricks day they have a great laugh at all the Irish running around wearing green hats. If you have lived in China, you'll know what that means. Not that anyone gives a rats ass over here.
Believe me when I say that the concept of face is important to the Chine
Well, yeah, I actually do trust Bejing more than a whole zoo of other countries.
Thats like saying herpes is better than aids. Go herpes!
To be honest I put Falun Gong in the same bucket as scientology, another cult of personality, so in a way I can see why it is being suppressed by the Chinese. Not that I support killing anyone for their beliefs, but it is the time-honoured solution, and apparently one of those few traditions China has not let go of...
Face matters in Chinese culture, a lot,
Nah you're thinking about Japan. Face doesn't matter a damn to the Chinese, they left that behind along with the bowing after the "popular revolution", too like the older imperialistic ways (I know whereof I speak, I learned most of my Mandarin in China). Whats happening here is that China has been believing its own propaganda too much, and honestly believed the rest of the world would bend over because of the innate superiority of their offering and the fact that China is the centre of the world. Lollers. Now the harsh reality is catching up, they are throwing a tantrum.
Its really quite entertaining to watch the heavy handed buffoons they have in charge over there try to maneuver on the world stage; less bull in china shop than one legged man in a three legged race. Apologies to those whose sensibilites are offended by these facts, having been raised on the mysterious ways of the orient served up with a big dollop of hollywood fat, but there you have it.
What makes it worse is there own twisted view of what is morally right and what isn't
You misspelled profitable, there, I think...
Its like trying to put a celebrity in jail, won't happen.
Nope, its not. The RIAA etc. are what celebrities hide behind in order to prosecute pirates and the like. That same dissociation is now going to be a serious liability here. They aren't the rock stars, they are the bouncers. If I was the injured party in this case I would take the inevitable seven figure out of court settlement and tell them to shove it somewhere south of the border sans lube, and request the heads of the execs on a silver platter. These yahoos are out of control, and as they are so fond of pointing out, an example needs to be made.
the cognitive dissonance required to hold it should break any functioning mind.
You must be new here...
Two threads moved to one here.
Okay I'm going to pull these two threads into one here; first of all the underlying premise of MAD is correct according to current standards. However it is really only a matter of time before effective countermeasures are developed against ICBMs. Once that occurs, the MAD situation is gone, and its business as usual. Maybe something more horrifying yet than thermonuclear destruction will arise; and in its place will come more countermeasures. And thats before we even get into space, which brings a wide variety of new arenas and possibilities to compete.
Also, I'd like to point out that I don't equate non-violent tendencies with stagnation; I simply displayed the evidence of history, which, as I said, leads one to the conclusion that aggressive groups progress faster than non aggressive. Your example of the Japanese is well and good, but 60 years in a highly artifical environment isn't much of an example. And having had their funding removed, they are once again trying to increase their military strength (returning to the natural environment).
You really have no evidence upon which to base your assertions. Whether or not you would be around to collect your bet doesn't make you more right.
Also I fully expect to have my brain transplanted to a tank long before that happens, and be controlling my army of robotic minions from my deep underground polar lair, hidden from the prying eyes of the death dealing extraterrestrial invaders, until my glorious return to the surface with their stolen technology, at which time sir, I'll be glad to pry your fossilised five dollars from your calcified skeletal grasp. No, the other kind of tank. I'll keep the eyebrows though.
The problem with having no majority operating system is that you can no longer build a general purpose computer that does everything.
Er such a computer does exist, and is used every day by millions of people, and lots of OSes work just dandy on it. Oh and you're taking away from the underlying fact that a corporate monoculture breeds laziness and inefficency; par example, MS with all its billions and thousands of developers, developers, developers, should be lashed with a paddle for not getting everything 100% right by this stage. And yes, it is perfectly possible to do so; not by taking the million monkeys approach which they seem to be doing however.
We simply do not have a culture of a government that oversteps it's boundaries, nor a culture of hostile dealings with other countries.
Except for those forced sterilisations there. You know, against the rebellious. Ah Sweden, also the place to be if you want to sexually abuse animals. Bestiality on the rise? Nice.
there is one thing nobody can beat us in: Freedom, Civil Liberties, and a the most solid defence against a corrupt government in history.
Sweden my arse, this is the same Sweden that until recently was practicising forced sterilisations? FTFA,
Those of mixed race, low intelligence or with physical defects underwent forced sterilization by the state in order to prevent such qualities from being passed on. However, there is evidence that sterilization extended even to those who were merely rebellious, promiscuous or did not fit in somehow.
Spyware by its very name is not desireable on a computer. No one wants it there, except obviously its makers. The problem that arises is when this spyware is running invisibly, and with no easy way to uninstall it (cool web search anyone?), even assuming the user ever finds out it is there. I'd call the fact that spyware manufacturers can produce parasitic software definetly indicative of defective code.
What gets me about all this is why MS is even releasing an antispyware program... wouldn't they be better off patching their own code? Its like someone trying to sell you repairs to their broken product. Yes I know its free - for now.
So "war" as we know it will become obsolete. Is that what you are saying?
I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
What about Genghis Khan. How in the world is he an example of a pacifist stagnating for millions of years?
Hes an example of an aggressor riding roughshod over stagnated populations, introducing such technological innovations as the firearm for example.
The question isn't on what grounds did they unite and become peaceful (internally). The question is, have they stagnated?
But they aren't in a stable equilibrium. There are hostile or at the very least competitive external forces promoting innovation and growth.
Ok, maybe competition isn't bad, but I see no reason why we must necessarily fight to progress.
Neither do I, but at the end of the day thats how it seems to pan out. Call it human nature if you like, but I don't think so. The fact is, to remove competition for resources, the most straightforward and permanent method is to kill your competitor.
The preponderance of evidence is distinctly in favor of larger and larger federations and unions. At some point, our eyes will collectively turn to outer space looking for a new enemy and we'll begin to realize how absolutely hopeless and pointless it would be to try to fight them.
The battlefield shifts, as I said. As for realising how outgunned we are, you assume we'll ever know we are under attack before the lights go out. Its not a sense of crushing despair, its a sense of crushing.
The chances of meeting another intelligent species which is at or near our own level of advancement to meaninfully compete with is next to nil.
I agree. To be honest, I'm not sure what your point is here. I'm saying that its likely that the most technologically advanced species will be aggressive and warlike, you are saying that past a certain level, enlightenment descends for some reason and peace breaks out all over. I'm saying that I have all of history to support my position, you appear to have optimism on your side. And while that is laudable, its just not realistic. I'm a big fan of reality, me, and while I have no objections to optimism or pessimism per se, I make my decisions based on the facts as they appear to be.
The my argument stands. We can only assume that other intelligent life is peaceful and seek to be peaceful with them.
I seriously have no idea where you pulled that conclusion from. Just because they aren't attacking us doesn't mean they are enlightened and peaceful. Maybe a rival gas giant race wants to wipe them out and zaps a few of our stars, whoops humanity is collateral damage.
Refer to a url pointing at a share within the company instead.
Have you never heard of phishing?
How would you compete with a species that is hundreds, thousands, and possibly millions of years more advanced that us... AND warlike?
Whoever said you could? In my estimation humanity would be completely wiped out in such a conflict. Life is hard. The only saving grace we might possibly have is that they might not require similar resources to us, life could have taken any number of shapes and sizes. For all we know the dominant intelligence in the Galaxy could be gas giant based, and would never have any interest in us at all. The only reason they might attack us would be for target practice. Who knows, that might be enough of a reason.
How many more world wars can we sustain before we either detroy ourselves or knock ourselves back into the bronze age?
When open war is no longer a feasable option, the battlefield merely shifts, as history has shown us (for example the cold war).
But you have very little to base this prediction on.
Except, for example, Genghis Khan. I'm sure a few hundred other examples could be applied.
Look at Europe, for example. They've FINALLY found peace after hundreds of years of nearly constant warring.
Sixty years of peace hardly qualifies as a good example. And I should point out that the formation of the EU began on economic grounds, in the face of a far more competitive US.
Look at Japan. They have almost no military.
Japan has no military because it is under the aegis of the US, with US bases and forces in place to protect it. Furthermore is has received massive amounts of foreign aid from the US to prop up its economy, in the name of being a bulwark against communist China, aid which extended until relatively recently. Now that the aid has ceased, guess what? They are jockeying for their own military forces again.
So I don't buy this idea for a second that we must continue fighting and competing with our brother in order to avoid "stagnation."
Oh I didn't say that. I'm just pointing out the iron hard evidence to the contrary. Frankly I really don't have an opinion on the matter, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
And if we go out into space with guns blazing, they might just decide to squash us like annoying bugs.
I completely agree. Therefore the likelihood of us getting squashed like bugs is quite high, I reckon.
I'm sure someone already knows we are here.
I'm not sure where you get that certainty from; unless you have access to some information the rest of us don't possess, I'd say rather the chances are extremely high in the opposite direction, based on what I know.
In summary I should say I am as pro-peace as the next man, and I think war is an evil that must be stamped out, and soon. The preponderance of evidence is distinctly in favour of aggressive expansionist cultures gaining the upper hand technologically however.
Seems to me that some form of pacifism would pretty much be a necessity for any intelligent species to survive beyond a certain technological threshhold
I've heard this before, and the reasoning is a bit suspect. I mean, do you think its coincidence that the greatest advances in technology were achieved during times of war (hot or cold)? I certainly don't. Chances are that the most advanced species are the most competitive or warlike, and the pacifists reach a state of equilibrium (stagnation) with their environment for a few million years before the other races find them and wipe them out.
(i.e. our radiosphere is actually easily visible when viewing the entire galaxy.)
This would be the same Galaxy that we recently discovered we had entirely the wrong shape for? I wouldn't underestimate the staggering immensity of our ignorance at this stage (note this doesn't mean we are stupid, just not educated enough yet), and any efforts to realistically predict alien intelligence or lack thereof are going to come up against that barrier. To whit I say, all bets are off.
Assuming that the only things in space were earth and the receiver, I would agree with you. However there really isn't much remarkable about our star or position (as far as I know), and there is also diffusion due to interstellar dust to consider, so even if a signal were received, the odds of it being intelligible or even resembling the construct of an advanced society are incredibly small. Not to mention on an interstellar scale it is quite likely that it might be mistaken for an emission from the sun itself. So not only are there many more interesting things in the sky, whatever we do send out would need to be received by a device directly pointed at earth, listening on the correct wavelengths. I daresay even a direct focused laser communication would have difficulty being received on that scale.
I still think that somewhere out there, a superior communication method to radio exists, much as radio on earth was found to be superior to telegraphs, and they superior to the pony express. In fact chances are there are several levels of communication ability beyond radio, so the quantum vibration guys are completely uninterested in the radio comms, and the wormhole wave fellows are chortling at them from their lofty vantage, while the Heim-space dimensional curvers just don't see the point in mingling with the wormhole riff-raff.
A concern I have is that we discover some new and better means of communication, and inadvertently let everything in the universe know we are here, drawing all manner of unwelcome attention (cf Cortez, Incas).