Aliens

[rocketdodger]

It could be argued that game theory suggests any highly evolved intelligent races we encounter will exhibit a respect for autonomy of others, if not empathy.

However, that argument hinges on the supposition that such a race will have evolved as rational agents and therefore that game theory actually applies to them like it does to us. This may not be the case, although admittedly it is hard for me to imagine an evolved intelligence being anything else.

What do you all think? What are the chances that intelligent alien races we encounter will or will not fit this "mold?"

It could also be argued that given the size of the known universe, there is a very high probability of intelligent life evolving elsewhere. If so, one would expect at least a few of those species to have come about earlier than we did, possibly by millions of years.

Supposing we look at where we are now, and extrapolate a few million years in the future, I would expect a godlike level of technology that has tamed everything in the natural world that can be tamed. Yet, we have not encountered any evidence of another race doing so.

Does this suggest there will never be a way to traverse the universe faster than light? Or does it suggest civilizations usually destroy themselves before they learn such techniques?

 

[fuelair]

What if their advancement is sufficient that they are incapable of recognizing us as of sufficient intelligence to be treated with respect beyond the level accorded any animate object.

For my purposes (and some others with more knowledge than I in the field), the problem would be distance and time to cover those distances - even if the travel was instantaneous and the investigation minimal. Neither of which are likely.

 

[Francesca R]

It could be argued that game theory suggests any highly evolved intelligent races we encounter will exhibit a respect for autonomy of others, if not empathy.

Why does game theory indicate that? I don't see the link at all. Can you elaborate?

However, that argument hinges on the supposition that such a race will have evolved as rational agents and therefore that game theory actually applies to them like it does to us. This may not be the case, although admittedly it is hard for me to imagine an evolved intelligence being anything else.

I think I can go along with other evolved races posessing rationality, on the basis that rationality might be naturally selected out anywhere in the universe. I don't know if that assumption is reasonable though, and would be interested in other comments on it.

Supposing we look at where we are now, and extrapolate a few million years in the future, I would expect a godlike level of technology that has tamed everything in the natural world that can be tamed. Yet, we have not encountered any evidence of another race doing so.

I suggest that is because we can't extrapolate with any accuracy at all, with the evidence for that being that predictions of our own future even 25 years ahead have probably been mostly wrong.

 

[Rob Lister]

It could be argued that game theory suggests any highly evolved intelligent races we encounter will exhibit a respect for autonomy of others, if not empathy.

However, that argument hinges on the supposition that such a race will have evolved as rational agents and therefore that game theory actually applies to them like it does to us. This may not be the case, although admittedly it is hard for me to imagine an evolved intelligence being anything else.

Why can't you imagine that? Is it because you assume 'they' are only as rational as are we?

Can't it also be argued that they will immediately destroy us as a potential threat? Or to build an interstellar road project (re: HGTTG)?

Doesn't it all depend on their level of rationality?

 

[Bikewer]

I don't know much about game theory, but human beings operating among themselves have had no difficulty considering "alien" races to be sub-human and worthy only of exploitation.

Science-fiction writers have had fun with the idea, of course. The once prevalent notion that all "sufficiently advanced" beings would be benevolent and peaceful has been rather thoroughly minced...

Take Greg Bear's Anvil of Stars and Forge of God. At least one alien race sees any other possible intelligence as a potential threat. So, they develop self-replicating (Von Nuemann) machines to go out into the galaxy and hunt down and destroy them.

 

[Mister Earl]

The problem with this sort of mental exercise is that we just don't have data to draw from. We have experience with culture clashes between modern humans and native tribes in remote regions, but even these aren't as useful as they seem, for one simple fact: The tribals are still humans. They have the same core sociological values. Imagine, a supersentient race of alien beings. They don't use a family system like we do. They reproduce by budding. Their children recieve a duplicate of the memories of its parent, and need no schooling. They don't see the same range of light we do, and their variant of art and music are incomprehensible to us. Their political system is equally foreign. On what basis would we communicate? Why or why wouldn't we even register on their list of concerns? What if we don't require the same resources, of they have no need for ours? What if their curiosity is of such a different strain, that our existence alone isn't enough to warrant inspection?

Regrettably, the only way we're going to have some hard answers in this area is if and when we do run into another sentient species, and can gauge future encounters with this initial set of data.

 

[Wolfman]

It could be argued that game theory suggests any highly evolved intelligent races we encounter will exhibit a respect for autonomy of others, if not empathy.

Game theory pretty much involves situations where each side is equally capable of inflicting harm on the other side.

If you change the rules, and make one party significantly more powerful than the other, then the most successful strategy is actually one of direct conflict. Thus, within their own society, it would be valid to argue that they'd develop some degree of 'respect of autonomy' and 'empathy'; but I don't think it is valid to extend that to conclude that they'd demonstrate the same thing towards others.

Look at our own culture; even within societies that greatly value human equality and freedom, it is still very much the norm to prey upon and exploit 'lesser' creatures. Killing them for food, capturing and imprisoning them for entertainment, etc. Few humans feel "empathy" for a chicken. Even fewer for a mosquito.

I see no reason to believe that even a "highly evolved" culture would view us as equals, or feel empathy for us. Quite the opposite. If we are talking only about humans, then survival of some portion of our population is absolutely necessary for the continuation of our species; this is not in any way true for aliens. And this argument works just as well from the opposite perspective.

 

[Francesca R]

Game theory pretty much involves situations where each side is equally capable of inflicting harm on the other side.

What I was thinking is that game theory is simply decision theory where decisions are strategic--that is, they depend on anticipation/knowledge of the actions of other players. Game theory can then be used to calculate the likelihood of any player prevailing (realising her/his goal) and/or the likelihood of reaching a Nash equilibrium (and what thay equilibrium looks like).

So if one player has a much greater threat power than the other, and more to gain from not co-operating, then the game reaches equilibrium quite quickly, which is--as you said--the powerful player whops the other's ass.

 

[Zeuzzz]

For my purposes (and some others with more knowledge than I in the field), the problem would be distance and time to cover those distances - even if the travel was instantaneous and the investigation minimal. Neither of which are likely.

Unless they are able to utilize the very physics laws that put a limit on the speed; http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.1649 - Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 2008

Certain classes of higher dimensional models suggest that the Casimir effect is a candidate for the cosmological constant. In this paper we demonstrate that a sufficiently advanced civilization could, in principal, manipulate the radius of the extra dimension to locally adjust the value of the cosmological constant. This adjustment could be tuned to generate an expansion/contraction of spacetime around a spacecraft creating an exotic form of field-propulsion. Due to the fact that spacetime expansion itself is not restricted by relativity, a faster-than-light ‘warp drive’ could be created. Calculations of the energy requirements of such a drive are performed and an ‘ultimate’ speed limit, based on the Planckian limits on the size of the extra dimensions is found.

Just basically some assumptions about extra dimensions, its amazing what you can acheive by adding in few random mathematical dimensions. Another; http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0406083

 

[rocketdodger]

Game theory pretty much involves situations where each side is equally capable of inflicting harm on the other side.

If you change the rules, and make one party significantly more powerful than the other, then the most successful strategy is actually one of direct conflict. Thus, within their own society, it would be valid to argue that they'd develop some degree of 'respect of autonomy' and 'empathy'; but I don't think it is valid to extend that to conclude that they'd demonstrate the same thing towards others.

Look at our own culture; even within societies that greatly value human equality and freedom, it is still very much the norm to prey upon and exploit 'lesser' creatures. Killing them for food, capturing and imprisoning them for entertainment, etc. Few humans feel "empathy" for a chicken. Even fewer for a mosquito.

I see no reason to believe that even a "highly evolved" culture would view us as equals, or feel empathy for us. Quite the opposite. If we are talking only about humans, then survival of some portion of our population is absolutely necessary for the continuation of our species; this is not in any way true for aliens. And this argument works just as well from the opposite perspective.

Yes but with us empathetic humans, the respect for autonomy that we develop when dealing with each other tends to spill over into our dealings with non-human species (at least in the good humans). The result is that many of us will respect other beings, even when we are very much more powerful than they. Hence the tendancy of good humans to treat animals kindly, even if we plan on eating them. Will a similar thing happen in other intelligent races -- will they have the equivalent of positive anthropomorphism that humans exhibit?

 

[Francesca R]

Yes but with us empathetic humans, the respect for autonomy that we develop when dealing with each other tends to spill over into our dealings with non-human species (at least in the good humans). The result is that many of us will respect other beings, even when we are very much more powerful than they. Hence the tendancy of good humans to treat animals kindly, even if we plan on eating them. Will a similar thing happen in other intelligent races -- will they have the equivalent of positive anthropomorphism that humans exhibit?

On the basis that they are rational, they will do that if they have more to gain from so doing than from doing something else.

I wouldn't consider treating an animal humanely followed by slaughtering it for food to be an unqualified example of empathy.

 

[Cuddles]

This may not be the case, although admittedly it is hard for me to imagine an evolved intelligence being anything else.

You read these forums and still find it hard to imagine intelligence being irrational?

What do you all think? What are the chances that intelligent alien races we encounter will or will not fit this "mold?"

snip

Does this suggest there will never be a way to traverse the universe faster than light? Or does it suggest civilizations usually destroy themselves before they learn such techniques?

It's impossible to say. We simply have no data to base even speculation on.

 

[rocketdodger]

On the basis that they are rational, they will do that if they have more to gain from so doing than from doing something else.

Well thats how empathy works, right? We seek to avoid the negative feelings generated when we hurt others.

I wouldn't consider treating an animal humanely followed by slaughtering it for food to be an unqualified example of empathy.

Really? What else could it be besides empathy? We know it is just an animal, we know it will die anyway, so why should we treat it well beforehand? I can't think of any reason other than empathy...

 

[Fnord]

The Atomic Rocket Website has some interesting takes on this topic. Look at the Aliens page...

Consider the high improbability that any two Earth-like planets will form and evolve to the exact and ideal conditions that develop and support carbon-based life.

Consider also the number of mass extinctions that have occurred in Earth's past. It is unlikely that the same number of these would occur on another Earth- like world at exactly the same time and with the exact same frequency.

Finally, consider the cultural developments in Earth's history, and apply a few "What Ifs." What if Democracy had never developed beyond the conceptual stage? What if Rome had never fallen? What if Columbus had never received any financial backing from the Spaniards? What if the Nazis had developed the atomic bomb first?

Would any of one of these events have delayed or advanced human development by as much as 0.001%? One value given for the age of the Earth is 4.567 billion years. A +/- 0.001% change would set human evolution back by 4.567 million years ("Apes"), or advance it by 4.567 million years ("Angels").

Thus, by the "Apes & Angels" argument, one could say that any two worlds that formed at exactly the same time, and that have had billions of years to go from dust to sentient life, could differ by as much as 9.134 million years in evolution!

A divergence of only 0.000001% would still separate the two extremes by 9.134 thousand years. With this value, one alien world could have a bronze-age culture (year = 2560 BCE), while another could be far ahead of our own, both culturally and technologically (year = 6574 CE). Maybe not "Apes & Angels" but perhaps “Spearchuckers & Supermen”?

I wonder if the OP gave consideration to this concept, that an extraterrestrial civilization would look at us as either primitive creatures or as god-like beings -- as equals would be an extreme long shot.

 

[rocketdodger]

I wonder if the OP gave consideration to this concept, that an extraterrestrial civilization would look at us as either primitive creatures or as god-like beings -- as equals would be an extreme long shot.

It did, and this was really my point -- if they look at us as primitive creatures, what are the chances they will at least respect us as other sentient beings?

 

[Jimbo07]

It did, and this was really my point -- if they look at us as primitive creatures, what are the chances they will at least respect us as other sentient beings?

Watch Babylon 5. It looks at these questions from a variety of angles... plus, you may derive other entertainment in the process!

 

[steve s]

Can't it also be argued that they will immediately destroy us as a potential threat?

In the movie Contact, people are arguing that very point. Jody Foster's character argues that the aliens would have no reason to fear us. She says "We would be no more of a threat to them than an ant is to us." Someone else shoots back with "And how much remorse would you feel if you stepped on an ant?"

Consider also the number of mass extinctions that have occurred in Earth's past. It is unlikely that the same number of these would occur on another Earth- like world at exactly the same time and with the exact same frequency.

Finally, consider the cultural developments in Earth's history, and apply a few "What Ifs." What if Democracy had never developed beyond the conceptual stage? What if Rome had never fallen? What if Columbus had never received any financial backing from the Spaniards? What if the Nazis had developed the atomic bomb first?

Would any of one of these events have delayed or advanced human development by as much as 0.001%? One value given for the age of the Earth is 4.567 billion years. A +/- 0.001% change would set human evolution back by 4.567 million years ("Apes"), or advance it by 4.567 million years ("Angels").

Thus, by the "Apes & Angels" argument, one could say that any two worlds that formed at exactly the same time, and that have had billions of years to go from dust to sentient life, could differ by as much as 9.134 million years in evolution!

What if the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs and allowed mammals to thrive had hit 100 million years sooner. We'd be a lot more advanced than 9.1 million years (assuming that we still would have evolved).

Steve S.

 

[Jimbo07]

Science-fiction writers have had fun with the idea, of course.

Take Greg Bear's Anvil of Stars and Forge of God.

Watch Babylon 5.

In the movie Contact, people are arguing that very point.

These posts are all in line with my thinking that these questions are currently being well-handled (from a variety of viewpoints) by science fiction. There is precious little else to go on...

 

[rocketdodger]

Watch Babylon 5. It looks at these questions from a variety of angles... plus, you may derive other entertainment in the process!

In other words, what percentage of alien races are vorlon and what percentage are shadow? Hmmmmm...

 

[dudalb]

It did, and this was really my point -- if they look at us as primitive creatures, what are the chances they will at least respect us as other sentient beings?

No way of knowing ,but consdiering the record of Humans when dealing with societies who are technologically less advanced, I would say the chances are not too good they are going to have a lot of respect for us.