War Mongering Just Runs In The Family

Biggest Guy just suggested I link to a paper he tossed off that explains why – in international relations theory – we’re screwed if the aliens ever show up. (think Jonathan Swift)

The funniest thing is that he always slams me for my political positions in our family discussions. Take that, son!!

Actually, he really just wants to go to Mars…and he’ll use any argument to get a program started that will get him there.

17 thoughts on “War Mongering Just Runs In The Family”

  1. Technology, in common with many other activities, tends toward avoidance of risks by investors. Uncertainty is ruled out if possible. Capital investment follows this rule, since people generally prefer the predictable. Few recognize how destructive this can be, how it imposes severe limits on variability and thus makes whole populations fatally vulnerable to the shocking ways our universe can throw the dice.

    *–Assessment of Ix, Bene Gesserit Archives*

    The biggest guy is right. Rather than seeking an introduction to extinction in this universe, we should first be investing in technology that will protect genome homo sapiens. The Bene Gesserit have found competition and predation to be the basic law of the Metaverse. 😉

  2. You know this confirms a theory I had just today walking the dingo. You know, all these anti war types…how DID their genes survive anyway?

  3. Reminds me of that Canadian ex-defense minister running around claiming that not only do aliens exist, but the evil Bush administration is actively trying to pick a fight with them. Because that is what Bush does.

  4. Interesting essay!

    You know, all these anti war types…how DID their genes survive anyway?

    The human genome has been honed through natural selection toward optimizing the amount of aggression. This is done by having a balance between people more or less predisposed to attack “the other”. So we must cherish our peaceniks and our warmongers. Each has their role to play in the human drama.

    Too much outward aggression yields diminishing returns by diverting necessary resources away from other more valuable activities, like making babies and feeding them. Aggression isn’t the goal, procreation is.

    Creating unnecessary enemies would not further that goal, and not seeing to real threats doesn’t help either. It’s a yin and yang thing. In all things, there must be balance.

    So the mistake that the biggest guy makes is that he assumes that the appropriate response is to kill all potential rivals. In actuality, the optimal response is to be just dangerous enough that you are left alone.

    There’s another strategy though. You could also make yourself just useful or profitable enough that leaving you alone is the best option even in cases of a severe power disadvantage. Perhaps, free trade will work with aliens?

  5. The kid’s wrote a good paper, AL. Congrats on sending him to an excellent college.

    I blogged about “where are the aliens” a couple of weeks ago. This is a favorite topic of mine, so please forgive the links back to some of my blog entries.

    I think the discussion of aliens raises some interesting questions, and allows us to look at our own politics, wars, and such through external eyes.

    There could be a whole series of blogs on this one topic, and I’m sure there is! If the kid wants to go to Mars (as I do) the best bet is supporting some kind of super X-Prize working towards chemical-free propulsion systems. NASA has had a lot of problems with the shuttle. In general I believe that putting up some big bucks for the free market would solve most of the organizational problems we’re having with technology.

    As far as that ex-minister in Canada, that is really odd. Odd like Leon Panetta (Clinton’s former chief of staff) coming out and demanding that the government be honest about what it knows about UFOs.

  6. My first thought when reading this was that, if SETI and the space program are meant as steps toward a future along the lines of that depicted in Star Trek, then Biggest Guy’s paper is more like a step toward Trek‘s “Mirror Universe” (where humans, not Klingons, are the galaxy’s bad-asses and Earth is the center of an aggressive interstellar Empire instead of a peaceful, utopian Federation).

  7. He makes a good point about the Alien “security dilemma”. If I were an alien, I wouldn’t trust us either.

    Imagine being a newly-arrived alien, invited to give a speech at the United Nations. “Here I will meet the wisest and noblest representives of the human race, who have devoted their lives to peace,” you think. Imagine your suprise.

    After your visit to the UN, you meet a US Congressional delegation. Worse yet, a bunch of Anglican bishops. With some G8 protesters in tow. And so on, until the Mission Chief of Security calls the mothership and tells them to start arming the tachyon torpedoes.

  8. Ooh. Tachyon torpedoes. Kinda gives a whole new meaning to ready, fire, aim!

    (Tachyons are theorhetical particles that move faster than the speed of light, thus traveling backwards in time)

    I believe the thrust of the article is “We’re pretty warlike, and ET is liable to squish us like a bug. Best to colonize the planets and arm to the teeth so we’ll be ready for ’em!”

    I think this is a beautifully-constructed piece of reasoning. If it generates funding for real space travel and not overloaded NASA bureaucrats, count me in.

  9. I agree 100% the natural order of earth would be the same of everyother planet anywere.

    Simply Humans are the dominant species not by being content plant eaters who just learned to defend themselves against the predators, but instead by being orbavors who learned to pack up for defence and in time killed all of the predators that were threats allowing them to spread and grow of course at the price of the other species. This competition and defence by killing off of threats is what makes humans so succesfull over all other species its our driving force. Any alien race who dominates its planet would be the same type of mentality. Its the natural order “strong survive weak die out”

    Given this order I think the odds of a peacfull enlightened omnipitent alien race is very very low if even a possiblity. At best they maybe like ourselves with a internal struggle of utopean dreamers and realist who abide by the laws of natural order. Most likely they are heavily defensive and wether we are happy little pacifist with potential or dangerous warmongers either way we would be a threat. Japan is a pacifist nation but at the same time thier technology could quickly make them a powerfull threat. And at the sametime if we look to be too primative we risk not even being considered a intllegent species but like a dolphin or chimp yeah they have some intellegence but when it is us or them the choice is real easy same thing for aliens. I think it would be better to be the wonmonger militiristic threat than the other options. At least as a militiristic nation the aliens would have some cost to weigh in thier attack. America could currentley easily walk over most nations on earth but not at no cost even the smallest operations and missions have cost to weigh is it worth the price? Also even a omnipitant race would never just give away thier tech advantages so the benifits of US announcing our existance has very nill if any benifit while risks are massive. On the other hand passive sensors and such are a great benifit if we can detect a race before they detect US gives us the ability to asses the threat monitor learn if we want to be noticed or not by them. The bottom line the more advanced we are and the more of a threat we are to them short of attacking them the better our chances of survival.

    It maybe primative but it is always better to be negotiating from a position of power not weakness.

  10. Oh and about the Pacifist genes surviving they make good slaves and low level workers just incapable of any major decisions or especially leadership.

    Their is a reason their is no Pacifist enlightened nations on earth. Ask Tibet they are a just the latest of a long line who tried to put the panzies in charge.

  11. Biggest Guy is mostly right. The history on Earth of two cultures meeting when one is far more advanced than the other – is usually dismal. I don’t expect it would be any different with aliens involved, and anyone who can get here automatically qualifies as a hell of a lot more advanced.

    If we don’t have any potential they need, or we have something physical they need (worst case: protein), then yeah, we’re screwed.

    If we do have potential they need, and don’t have much in a physical sense that’s of value, then the options get more interesting. Still variable, dangerous, and with implications that most of humanity isn’t going to adapt to – and we know what that means. But with an outside shot at long term positive.

    Understand, however, that we’re talking about an outside chance of an outside chance here. SETI as a program of contract is still an insane idea, especially given that we don’t know anything about what’s out there. Now throw in the fact that if there are other civilizations to contact, those MOST motivated to show up upon getting a signal would also be the most likely to be hostile.

    Like I said, insane.

    Still… there’s a flaw in his essay. A big one.

    The flaw in his reasoning, surprisingly, lies in the survival imperative. While the effects he describes are true, he missed the fact that there are outcomes more valuable than certainty (vid. Darwi Odrade, above).

    Why? Because there are more than two players in the game.

    Any race that shows up is likely to have concerns and problems of its own. And it will act in its own interests. But what it chooses to see as potential will depend on both its own background and the overall situation in which it finds itself at that time. A planet of beings that show a real talent for focused mayhem may be exactly what their holographic doctor ordered. Or, the key may be something else.

    When the British went into India, they found a culture with great internal depth and history, but the rest was a mismatch. No surprise who won. It was not always a happy process for the locals, to be sure, but the result today may be a critical emerging ally with enough strength and commonality of values to make it a real plus in a world where many unsavory and dangerous players exist.

    So “look at the Indians!” may be a maxim that cuts both ways. And failing to see BOTH sides has consequences.

    EX: Take the (hypothetical) Blaxians, who interpreted “the survival imperative” as meaning they had to exterminate all competitors. Their fate? Wiped out by the Tymbrimi, who had cultivated and uplifted some real allies along the way – and successfully pointed to Race A’s record as proof that the only choice was ending Race A or ending everybody else.

    The Blaxians are gone now, and nobody misses them. In light of which, the Tymbrimi still find their detailed philosophical writinggs about “the survival imperative” amusing.

  12. Bashar Katzman is correct as always.
    All species should remember,

    The safe road leads downwards to eventual stagnation.

    😉

  13. Actually space is not the only place we could encounter aliens. It is possible that one day advanced superintelligent robots and computers, the descendants of the friendly PC or Apple on your desktop, could turn out to be the aliens you dreamt about in your nightmares. See Terminator and Battlestar Galactica.
    Another place is bioengineered species of our own creation like Planet of the Apes.

    Basically any Darwinian Agent of any kind is a potential competitor, with interests of its own, wherever and whenever we find one another.

    I would argue that transhumanism at all costs is the only solution.
    All our most advanced technologies must be used FIRST to enhance and empower ourselves.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.