Hawking says contact with Aliens could be risky

[Pastiche]

If the precepts of evolution and adaptation hold in that rivalry and competition over scarce resources is a main driver then I think we should be extremely wary of extra terrestrial life.

Dominant species on a planet got their by dominating. There is no reason to think that they would show some enlightened benevolence to a planet that they have had no ties to. An ET civilization would come to our planet look at the rate at which we are harvesting its resources to the detriment of all other species and would feel little remorse for doing the same to us. That is survival of the fittest. The fact that our planet is still relatively plentiful in resources and unsullied would also make it an extremely appealing location for colonization.

It's a simple cost-benefit calculation. What benefit could we get from contact with aliens and what costs could we endure?

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

The fact that our planet is still relatively plentiful in resources and unsullied would also make it an extremely appealing location for colonization.

Yeah but who's to say that our resources are even considered useful to them? If they are ripping through the galaxy at light speed then I'd expect they have found some other means to power their ships. And who knows if water and oxygen are even useful to them or harmful. Maybe they are like plants and breath carbon dioxide. Maybe they $#!@ gold! The possibilities are endless.

[Pastiche]

The possibilities are endless.

Not really actually. ET life would be very similar to our own. They share the same universe as us and thus share the same laws of physics. They are mostly like carbon based life forms that need water and oxygen (or another reactive gas).

We have an abundance of biomass, fossil fuels, and WATER. No matter who you are those are useful. The energy required to synthesize water, fossil fuels and biomass is huge. Why go to all that trouble when it's right there waiting for you?

[firebug]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

This is a classic misconception of adaptation. As already stated, adaptation is not progression, it is not guided by human values but by nature. If it turns out that smarter people reproduce more then yes, we will evolve to be smarter. However, there is no guarantee of that to be the case. The stupider but stronger may have more children, or people immune to a form of disease that will evolve. As already stated, adaptation is not an end, it is a means. It will happen when it needs to on tangents that we cannot predict.

From anecdotal evidence here in North America your theory is already proving false as lower educated people are having more children.

You are implying a Lamarckian process for the basis of evolution (which is incorrect).

An individuals education has no bearing on the likelihood of them siring intelligent offspring, or even being 'intelligent' themselves.

For your premise to be valid it would have to be demonstrated that those with lower 'intelligence' were consistently selecting to breed with those of lower 'intelligence'.

Even if that were to be the case, the example of the Potsdam Giants demonstrates that there are many more factors of heredity than would appear at first glance.

~firebug

[worth]

I somewhat disagree with you Pastiche. I don't see a reason why silicon base life form couldn't evolve somewhere. I know you didn't say it couldn't, but these life forms would be fundamentally different in their make up and biochemistry.

Life forms that are carbon based and require water like us would be similar, but would be exposed to a totally different set of evolutionary traits on another world. Gravity, Solar System, Elements etc. would all play a large role in determining what this life is, even if it is similar in make up to us.

And since we're getting all hypothetical here, we could even delve into the world of the multiverse, where different physical laws have taken place.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Not really actually. ET life would be very similar to our own. They share the same universe as us and thus share the same laws of physics. They are mostly like carbon based life forms that need water and oxygen (or another reactive gas).

We have an abundance of biomass, fossil fuels, and WATER. No matter who you are those are useful. The energy required to synthesize water, fossil fuels and biomass is huge. Why go to all that trouble when it's right there waiting for you?

How do you know that alien life would find biomass and fossil fuels useful? I find it hard to believe that they have not found non-fossil or non-biological sources to rely on if they are flying around the galaxy.

And really, how can you be so sure that they would be so similar to us? The only life we know is from this planet. Who's to say what could develop given different conditions on a completely alien planet?

[worth]

I think what Pastiche is saying is that in "this" universe, we are all subject to the same laws. The same laws of gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak Nuclear forces etc. No one can change this, no matter where you come from in the universe. So we all have a similar starting point.

That being said, there can be variation within this universe still. ET evolving on an entirely different plant with different quantities of elements from our own planet would evolve into very different creatures, even if they are carbon based.

A nose, Eyes, 4 extremities and a torso is a very human like analog. These are not necessary in order to exist. It was perhaps one of the more efficient analogs on this planet to get around and do things needed to survive. But that may not be the case on another world. Just think of the amazing variation we get here in the oceans and elsewhere on the planet. Go off the planet and you'll see even more variation IMO.

[CaptainCrunch]

If any aliens come to earth, they would be unrecognizable to us, they might not even be able to step foot on our planet due to massive environmental differences that technology cannot overcome.

Of course their language and even the way they think will be completely alien to us so there will not even be a common ground to communicate or even learn languages.

The old concept of communicating through base numbers would probably not even work as our math is base 10 built around the number of fingers that we have. They might not even have fingers or even worse they might have a thousand meaning they wouldn't even understand the basic concepts of math.

Fact is, any first encounter might be built around us staring at their hideousness through two eyes, while they hear our ugliness through some other form of sensory usage. Then they decide that we're probably tasty and we find ourself slowly rotating over a plasma fire being gently basted.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by T@T

Evolution = to adapt to the needs of a species.

Humans are constantly striving to learn, we invent technology's that speeds up our learning curve. It's already apparent. Ask an older teacher the difference between now and 40 years ago in the kids she taught.

In the extreme short time our species has lived we went from stone tools/weapons, to discovering how to make fire and clothing so we could migrate out of Africa. To... Now we build machines that fly 4 times the speed of sound, nuclear technology and can literally place robots on other planets. That is our evolution in a very short time.

Even physically we changed as we adapted, we no longer need the appendix or even a gall bladder because of what we learned about diets,there has already be a few cases of kids born without an appendix,in a few thousand years maybe nobody will have one. we are also bigger,stronger and live longer than our ancestors.

There is little doubt. If our species survives,we will evolve to be "smarter" in the future.

And yet it's the less technologically advanced societies that are reproducing at a greater rate these days.

Evolution is all about population reproductive success. Beneficial traits are not something that can be strived for and are subject to environmental situations and changes. Stone age people still living in parts of the Amazon are no less "evolved" than us. It is very possible that the environmental situations that made intelligence beneficial will be diminished and other traits will become desirable some time in the future.

[Daradon]

I think the Fermi Paradox notes we Earthlings are relatively new on a very ancient cosmic stage and, all things being equal, intelligent life had a long period to come to the fore while we were still being amoebas . . . . . hence their signals should be here waiting for us to find already, in spite of the vast distances involved.

Yet . . . . there is nothing. A lack of evidence is proof there is nothing postulated Fermi.

As Photon noted, that's the physics answer.

The mathematical opinion is there are simply too many opportunities amid hundreds of billions of stars in tens of billions of galaxies in the universe for ourselves to be the only success. It's the height of arrogance to suppose we're the only place this could happen . . . .

That's Hawking's opinion . . . . and mine.

I don't know why people would suppose that greater intelligence means less malevolence. Sci-fi writers have long postulated that it makes good old fashioned common sense for increasingly intelligent beings to send out probes into the universe to eliminate potential competition, as an example.

Lastly, directly to Hawking's comments, if you're walking in the wilderness, it's never a good idea to let your dog take off into the woods . . . . you never know what kind of bear/cougar it's going to bring back to it's master.

Maybe he's right about that.

Cowperson

My post didn't say we were the only ones (or rather, that was only one of the hypothesis, but not the main point), simply that we'd never find any others, or others would never find us.

Like I said, it could be because of an extinction event that happens to lots of the societies (including ours) or maybe the vastness of space just simply never gets bridged.

I too agree it's a little egotistical to think we may be the only ones. But I still have a hard time believing we'll ever run into any others.

And yeah, it's because of the Fermi Paradox. I was reading a bunch of books where the author was trying to resolve the problem while still maintaining the basic principle.

Maybe there are millions of societies of intelligent life out there. I just doubt we'll ever run into them.

And on the off chance there isn't, it just makes it that much more likely to be the case.

[Sly]

The Universe is constantly expanding....... that's scary.

[photon]

It's expanding, and that expansion is accelerating. If that doesn't change at some point all we will see is our local group of galaxies, no other galaxies. And eventually no stars.

[Hammertime]

I'm slightly aroused at the possibility of being the first to mate with an alien.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

And yet it's the less technologically advanced societies that are reproducing at a greater rate these days.

Evolution is all about population reproductive success. Beneficial traits are not something that can be strived for and are subject to environmental situations and changes. Stone age people still living in parts of the Amazon are no less "evolved" than us. It is very possible that the environmental situations that made intelligence beneficial will be diminished and other traits will become desirable some time in the future.

It's estimated 70,000 years ago the first "human" species numbered around 15,000. Back then it was very dangerous times for these small humanoid creatures, it had to be tough with no weapons to fend off lions, tigers and many other creatures that wanted them for a meal. threw evolution though they got smarter and decided to leave the dangerous grasslands. Some went south and to the safer coastal regions and some went north right out of dodge to Asia and Europe.
Had they not done this we wouldn't have survived as a species..period.

Now, are you saying we don't have reproductive success?

We now number almost 7 billion people, we are the most successful species this planet has ever seen, even the huge success of the dinosaurs never had a species that came close to that number living at the same time.

In the year 1800 this planet had 1 billion people.

In 1920 we had 2 billion people
90 years later we are getting close to 7 billion. had the Asians not put a cap on having kids we would be at 10 billion by now! the industrial revolution not only made us "smarter" it made us horny.

I would say thats a success.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by photon

It's expanding, and that expansion is accelerating. If that doesn't change at some point all we will see is our local group of galaxies, no other galaxies. And eventually no stars.

It might be slightly boring to astronomy in a couple of billion years but the milky way with it's 100 billion stars should still be intact.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Hammertime

I'm slightly aroused at the possibility of being the first to mate with an alien.

Nah, the Simerians claimed to have done that 3500 years ago, the offsprings were nuts and made religion.

[Super-Rye]

Originally Posted by Sly

The Universe is constantly expanding....... that's scary.

Don't worry, it will stop eventually. :P

[T@T]

This is interesting!

Our population history since 1800 and possibility's for the future.



So what's the real thought proccess here?

Red line = end of sexual diseases and a new sex revolution?
Orange line = much of the same but eventually get low of food and water?
Green line = nuclear war, comet strike or alien invasion?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Hammertime

I'm slightly aroused at the possibility of being the first to mate with an alien.

I see you're watching V too

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by T@T

It's estimated 70,000 years ago the first "human" species numbered around 15,000. Back then it was very dangerous times for these small humanoid creatures, it had to be tough with no weapons to fend off lions, tigers and many other creatures that wanted them for a meal. threw evolution though they got smarter and decided to leave the dangerous grasslands. Some went south and to the safer coastal regions and some went north right out of dodge to Asia and Europe.
Had they not done this we wouldn't have survived as a species..period.

Now, are you saying we don't have reproductive success?

We now number almost 7 billion people, we are the most successful species this planet has ever seen, even the huge success of the dinosaurs never had a species that came close to that number living at the same time.

In the year 1800 this planet had 1 billion people.

In 1920 we had 2 billion people
90 years later we are getting close to 7 billion. had the Asians not put a cap on having kids we would be at 10 billion by now! the industrial revolution not only made us "smarter" it made us horny.

I would say thats a success.

I don't think I made my point clearly. I never said that humans never had reproductive success - clearly we have it. However, it is the struggle for survival and passing on genes that is the main mechanism for evolution. As masters of our environment with reproductive success, what will the future drivers of evolution be if we already have success? Take animals like sharks or crocidiles for example... they are enormously successful and thus have stayed virtually unchanged in 1 million years. With nothing driving change... things don't change. There is no evidence to suggest that our intelligence will keep evolving at the rate that it has been without survival challenges driving it. We could easily be at the peak right now. What characteristics we keep and pass on to progeny are ones that give us a reproductive advantage and if you look at the type of life that exists on this planet, intelligence is not the #1 quality and may not be in the future.

Do cheetah's evolve to run faster every generation? Will they eventually be able to run at the speed of sound? Of course not. As long as the speed they run right now gives them a good enough reproductive advantage (without being detrimental), it will likely stay the same. If environmental conditions change to where speed is no longer needed for passing on their genes, they could very easily lose that trait over time (and probably will as the energy cost of that trait is high). There is no reason to think that human intelligence has no bounds either.

As I mentioned, growth rates in the most technologically advanced parts of the planet are low or negative right now. Our lifestyle changes due to our technological advances have made it difficult or inconvenient to have big families... the ultimate irony being that the more religious and technologically inferior populations are actually the ones reproducing more and thus, are currently driving evolution. If the planet does become over populated and resources for survival become scarce, what humans do you think will have the survival and reproductive advantage? The ones that know how to use an iPhone, or the ones strong enough to kill for food? To make matters more complicated, people in the more advanced societies are also finding ways to keep defective genes in the population.

Depending on environmental situations beyond our control, it is pretty easy to imagine a world where humans evolve into less intelligent creatures if other characteristics take hold that improve our chances of survival moreso. Ancestors of whales left the ocean and eventually returned because what was beneficial in one era, was no longer beneficial in the next.. evolution has no end game.