This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That is a very false dichotomy. RKVs are existentially threatening to a planet-bound civilization in a way they simply aren't to a K1+ one, both because the latter has its own countermeasures and deterrence, and because dispersing across enough volume makes comprehensive eradication prohibitively expensive.
RKVs are also not made equal, any more than a Stinger and an ICBM are interchangeable because they're both missiles. You can go from planet-killer to whatever the limit of your launch infrastructure allows. You can modulate speed, switch from a single projectile to a macron gun, have the projectile intentionally disintegrate, switch to MIRV mode at terminal phase, etc etc. You're also not limited to RKVs or Nicoll-Dyson beams. Ultrarelativistic electron beams are perfectly nasty in their own right.
So yes, they're dangerous enough that you'd want to grow, and a sufficiently advanced civilization can also harden itself. Both can be true.
I don't dispute that more advanced civilizations can substantially harden themselves. That's half my argument. I do dispute that a dust shield is anything close to insurmountable, because, as I mentioned, a macron gun is literally relativistic dust. Seriously. The defenses that make a "durable" interstellar craft viable apply right back: laser sweeps, sacrificial forward drones, extended Whipple shields, etc. Disintegrating an incoming RKV is also not a guaranteed solution; it depends on how far out you intercept and how massive and fast the projectile is. It's worse than trying to blow up an asteroid with a nuke, because the debris cone can do nearly as much damage as the intact projectile.
I know about black holes as propulsion mechanisms and as power plants. My point was that you don't need to make one yourself; you can just co-opt one if it's close enough. If.
The whole content of GAH is that it predicts visible, persistent signatures. "It already happened invisibly" collapses straight back into the masking argument and inherits the same thermodynamic problem, so let me deal with both at once.
I have grave reservations about this being feasible at scale, and you're getting an awful lot for free here. A Dyson swarm has to dump waste heat somewhere. To mask it, you'd need either to redirect that heat away from every potentially-observing system in real time (which fails on light-cone delay alone, since you can't react to observers you don't yet know exist), or to eat leakage that scales with swarm size. At galactic scale that gets prohibitive fast. Selective emission masking also presupposes tracking every civilization in your light-cone with biosignatures, in advance, which is strictly harder than detecting them in the first place.
Project Hephaistos is actually informative here, and you're the one who mentioned it as a technosignature candidate in the first place. The fact that we can flag mid-IR excess candidates around individual M-dwarfs at galactic distances, and that the follow-up work suggests background Hot DOGs explain the contamination rather than masking failures, all of which tells you the detection floor is low. Hiding swarm-scale waste heat isn't a free lunch you can hand-wave. That is a ridiculous amount of engineering effort, for not very good reason. We don't hide the ISS from uncontacted tribes in the Amazon, even though we are actively trying not to contact them.
GAH only needs one civilization, anywhere, in the entire history of the observable universe, to launch them. If 99.9% of species are too cautious or too sensible or too risk-averse, the remaining 0.1% fills the lightcone. That was my "all it takes is one defector" point earlier, and it applies equally hard here. You're implicitly demanding universal restraint without admitting that you are, and "every species coordinates on the same restraint forever" is the part of your argument that I or anyone else familiar with Hanson would strenuously object to.
Pointing out that it's "one path out of thousands" is sloppy reasoning. There are an unbounded number of paths from my bed to the living room. I could climb out the window. I could head out the front door, catch a flight to Singapore, then another to Djibouti, come back in a bus and grab lunch on the way. But what would I actually do? Walk there. It's 10 seconds away.
The strength of GAH is that the absence of the signatures it predicts genuinely is strong evidence, because the assumption set is minimal. All you need is: STL interstellar travel is possible, and at least some civilizations will use available resources over geological timescales. That's it. Non-trivial amounts of time have passed since metallicity was sufficient for life to form. So either nobody is out there, or every single civilization in the lightcone independently converged on some elaborate restraint or hiding strategy.
The speed of light allows for cross-temporal sampling. We know what's happened in our galaxy in the last few tens of thousands of years, and we can see billions of years back. That's a lot of data.
The alternatives all require multiple, often jointly held assumptions about alien psychology, technology, or coordination. Aestivation needs everyone to also forgo currently available resources while they wait. Dark Forest needs a workable hiding strategy plus universal adoption. Fodor's intraterrestrials need every civilization to virtualize and also forgo probes. Masking needs a thermodynamic miracle plus universal adoption plus advance detection of every observer. The fewer joint assumptions, the better the explanation, and "no one is here yet" is just the cheapest fit.
More options
Context Copy link