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 -
The argument sort of shifts though -- "sending probes to explore is normal, we've even done it" moves to "sending probes for conquest/destruction is normal, anyone would do it".
Exploratory probes do seem pretty likely for sufficiently advanced civilizations, but unless the probes are remarkably inefficient at replicating you should be able to explore the galaxy pretty effectively without harvesting every scrap of energy/matter from every star system you visit -- granted on a long timelime, but I think we are stuck with that anyways. (thanks Einstein)
A lack of deliberate conquest/destruction type probes seems to point equally well towards "space is hard and there's not really much point in conquering/destroying other star systems because they are too far away to be either useful or harmful" as "everyone would obviously want to destroy/conquer anywhere in the galaxy that might produce a species that could compete with them (on massive time scales)".
Historical examples of grabbyness involved a lot more "grabbing stuff will make you super rich" than "you will probably never even know what you've grabbed; better destroy it just in case somebody else grabs it".
I think maybe you misunderstood my point. I'm saying that exploring, conquering, and extracting resources is pretty normal. That's what most species do if they can.
I agree, but the question is whether every last species would choose to be Unobtrusive. To both (1) not leave any messages; and (2) to not ruthlessly extract all available resources. I tend to doubt it.
"Destroy" isn't quite the right word. Destruction (in a general sense) is of course the natural consequence of aggressive grabbing.
I understand your point perfectly -- my point is that if only the first of those is something that a species can do vis a vis space exploration, which certainly seems to be the case, then they will not do the other things.
If your Von Neumann probes are star-hopping around the galaxy, they really only need enough resources from the solar system to hop on to the next few stars in your path -- where they will do it again. That doesn't seem like a lot of resources, and burning more resources than you need is wasteful, which is also something that most species are evolved not to be.
Well can we agree that (1) it would cost essentially nothing to have your Von Neuman probes lay claim (or attempt to lay claim) to the solar system; (2) it would cost essentially nothing to leave messages for future inhabitants; and (3) in a lot of cases, there is a good chance that a colonization wave would follow behind the probes?
(3) is probably the main source of disagreement -- I think interstellar colonization attempts are highly improbable due to the physics of the thing. (as mentioned, with possible edge cases where a highly advanced civilization has literally no alternative but to flee their home system -- seems improbable too though?)
Given ¬3, (1) no longer makes sense either -- why would you "lay claim" to something that you can never visit?
Messages... yeah maybe. I guess you need to include the odds of us finding the messages? Messages that are literally impossible to miss (on a millions of years timescale) would also be resource intensive to produce, and some black obelisks on Mars might very well exist! (or else your probes are designed to shoot some proto-DNA onto habitable planets and we are the message, of course)
Can you be more specific as to why?
To me, this doesn't seem improbable at all, it's a simple consequence of Malthusian mathematics and seems highly probable.
Why not? It costs essentially nothing. Even if all you are doing is planting a big flag. Heck, even if you don't lay claim, why not just leave probes in the system to make contact with anyone else who shows up and report back if anything interesting happens? This would cost essentially nothing.
Strong disagree. Leaving an unmistakable message would cost essentially nothing. For example, you could just leave an arbitrary number of probes in the system, have them watch for signs of intelligent life, and if they see them, physically visit any such beings and deliver a message face to face. This would cost essentially nothing.
Space is really big and the lifespan of every known creature is extremely short as compared to the timescales inherent to interstellar travel -- science fiction is fiction. Same goes for extracting resources -- Columbus thought he was going to China, which was known to have lots of resources that could feasibly be moved back home and sold at a profit. If he thought it would take 1000 years to get to China, he would not have gone.
I depends on your probes, doesn't it? Complex mechanical devices tend to have a pretty limited lifespan too -- if we hypothesize for the moment that self-replicating machines are not also science fiction, it still costs a lot more to have your probes hanging around replicating in every system they visit for hundreds of millions of years than not.
Why would you say this?
Mini-mag Orion (not a design relying on exotic propulsion technologies) can plausibly get to 10% of lightspeed, and decelerate on the other end with superconducting coils. This would make travel to Alpha Centauri and other nearby stars with a relatively large payload doable in a human lifetime. Beamed/solar sail can travel even faster, it just cannot carry a large payload.
And humans are not particularly long-lived even for vertebrates: Greenland shark might be able to do more than 500 years, and vertebrates are not very long-lived compared to some invertebrates, like glass sponges (thousands, maybe 10,000 years) which in turn are not long-lived compared to endoliths (which can live potentially for millions of years.)
I think the space-junk shielding aspect of Orion is a pretty big question mark though? But even if it worked, what's in Alpha Centauri that will make me rich in 20 years when I get back with it? The motivations that drove the age of sail just don't exist.
Endoliths and sponges are not sentient -- sponges are barely even animals! I find it somewhat plausible that we might find a way to live as long as the sharks, but wouldn't be at all surprised if that were a hard limit. (and even less surprised if there were some even shorter limit for big-brained animals in general)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link