My original comment was regarding the possibility of a highly-cohesive, eugenic, and non-proselytizing religion/culture being the bedrock of a high-tech civilization. The example I gave was more on the illustrative side. Keep in mind that what allowed current secular Jews to develop their smarts was this exact thing: sticking to their economic niches, their non-proselytizing religion and procreating.
As to *ultra*-Orthodox Jews now in Israel: you may be right (to an extent, for now at least). However, long-term, the experiment that is running right now in Israel may bear fruits that are contrary to what you're saying. Religions are not always as rigid when it comes to survival. When time comes, and they become the majority, things will *have* to be at least somewhat different, or everyone perishes. There are already reports of some Haredim joining the military. Plus, it's always possible to have 5% of your people devoted to science and engineering, while the other 95% mainly studies Torah and keeps the social glue active.
We live in the age of automation, after all, but IMO it's better to be praying and studying as opposed to robbing convenience stores and burning cars.
I agree that a binary criterion could make "terrestrial denfensism" ethically viable.
But what's so important about being aware of life and death? And why are you so sure that a more intelligent species won't find a criterion that renders yours trivial?
[Are you convinced that chimps and whales are aware of life and death?]
I don't know of any fundamentalist groups that had technology beyond the iron age and weren't/aren't in same way parasites of a larger, more secular civilization. Akhenazi Jews aren't fundamentalist, Orthodox Jews are and they are parasites of the Israeli welfare state that's being upheld by secular Jews. So any way you turn it there's always a large part of the population that's not happy with the fundamentalists and that part is more adaptable and understands technology better.
Stephen, to answer your question about the apeman:
I view being consciously aware of life and death as a binary thing, so no sliding scale. I don't think we should be killing chimps or whales to make room for more humans. One thing that could make me uncomfortable is the issue if lifespan: if aliens live far onger than humans then a world of them can have at least the same utility but with less people dying, that doesn't mean I think such a species should wipe us out, they should give us time (and if they're really so concerned with utility they should give us their life-extending technology) to figure out how to live as long as they do.
What a creepy, repulsive idea! Technological superiority = intellectual superiority = greater moral value? Congratulations, you've just argued that the SS were justified in murdering Ukrainian peasants. After all, Germany was more technologically advanced, right?
IMASBA understood me correctly. Sorry about the confusion. Notice that I didn't refer to all aliens. I referred to "enemy aliens." In such a case, all humans should take the human side.
Robin, can you think of a way to estimate how dangerous we are to extrasolar aliens? I think the key to estimating the risk of yelling at aliens is the gap between humans developing the ability to yell and humans developing the ability to harm aliens. If that gap is only one or two hundred years, no aliens are going to adopt a "passively listen and hope potential enemies yell at you" strategy. By the time you heard enemies over 200 light years away it could be too late, especially if you factor in a response that could move at sub light speeds.
I said in an earlier comment that I think we are already a threat -- for a few trillion dollars I think we could get some h-bomb armed von Neumann probes going -- but I am not an engineer and am not confident in that prediction.
Kind Aliens Theory:One plausible explanation is that there are lots of alien worlds who know of our existence but no population will make themselves known to earth until we have worked out how to live non-aggressively. This would obviously be in the interest of an alien world not to make contact with a planet that has nuclear weapons, space travel and barely controlled aggression.
I heard a claim that some radio telescope is able to detect typical airport radar from 50 light years away. If it is true then sending messages does not increase danger at all.
Maybe I'm the idiot, but I don't share it. Does it express the mindset that "it's us--end of story" or that the destruction of any (intelligent?) species is apt to be bad overall?
If you mean "shut all radars because aliens", its just an obviously poor choice.
My original comment was regarding the possibility of a highly-cohesive, eugenic, and non-proselytizing religion/culture being the bedrock of a high-tech civilization. The example I gave was more on the illustrative side. Keep in mind that what allowed current secular Jews to develop their smarts was this exact thing: sticking to their economic niches, their non-proselytizing religion and procreating.
As to *ultra*-Orthodox Jews now in Israel: you may be right (to an extent, for now at least). However, long-term, the experiment that is running right now in Israel may bear fruits that are contrary to what you're saying. Religions are not always as rigid when it comes to survival. When time comes, and they become the majority, things will *have* to be at least somewhat different, or everyone perishes. There are already reports of some Haredim joining the military. Plus, it's always possible to have 5% of your people devoted to science and engineering, while the other 95% mainly studies Torah and keeps the social glue active.
We live in the age of automation, after all, but IMO it's better to be praying and studying as opposed to robbing convenience stores and burning cars.
I agree that a binary criterion could make "terrestrial denfensism" ethically viable.
But what's so important about being aware of life and death? And why are you so sure that a more intelligent species won't find a criterion that renders yours trivial?
[Are you convinced that chimps and whales are aware of life and death?]
I don't know of any fundamentalist groups that had technology beyond the iron age and weren't/aren't in same way parasites of a larger, more secular civilization. Akhenazi Jews aren't fundamentalist, Orthodox Jews are and they are parasites of the Israeli welfare state that's being upheld by secular Jews. So any way you turn it there's always a large part of the population that's not happy with the fundamentalists and that part is more adaptable and understands technology better.
Stephen, to answer your question about the apeman:
I view being consciously aware of life and death as a binary thing, so no sliding scale. I don't think we should be killing chimps or whales to make room for more humans. One thing that could make me uncomfortable is the issue if lifespan: if aliens live far onger than humans then a world of them can have at least the same utility but with less people dying, that doesn't mean I think such a species should wipe us out, they should give us time (and if they're really so concerned with utility they should give us their life-extending technology) to figure out how to live as long as they do.
We know what Ukrainains were, whereas we're trying to predict what an unknown alien species will be like.
More to the point, who do you favor in humanity's war against the mosquito?
What a creepy, repulsive idea! Technological superiority = intellectual superiority = greater moral value? Congratulations, you've just argued that the SS were justified in murdering Ukrainian peasants. After all, Germany was more technologically advanced, right?
To the edge of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
A Nicoll-Dyson laser would be impossible to anticipate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
IMASBA understood me correctly. Sorry about the confusion. Notice that I didn't refer to all aliens. I referred to "enemy aliens." In such a case, all humans should take the human side.
Robin, can you think of a way to estimate how dangerous we are to extrasolar aliens? I think the key to estimating the risk of yelling at aliens is the gap between humans developing the ability to yell and humans developing the ability to harm aliens. If that gap is only one or two hundred years, no aliens are going to adopt a "passively listen and hope potential enemies yell at you" strategy. By the time you heard enemies over 200 light years away it could be too late, especially if you factor in a response that could move at sub light speeds.
I said in an earlier comment that I think we are already a threat -- for a few trillion dollars I think we could get some h-bomb armed von Neumann probes going -- but I am not an engineer and am not confident in that prediction.
Kind Aliens Theory:One plausible explanation is that there are lots of alien worlds who know of our existence but no population will make themselves known to earth until we have worked out how to live non-aggressively. This would obviously be in the interest of an alien world not to make contact with a planet that has nuclear weapons, space travel and barely controlled aggression.
Wow - why not read two paragraphs into a post before you comment on it?
I heard a claim that some radio telescope is able to detect typical airport radar from 50 light years away. If it is true then sending messages does not increase danger at all.
You still haven't told me why not. The (probably true) claim that I would fight them like anyone else is distinct from whether I should.
Maybe I'm the idiot, but I don't share it. Does it express the mindset that "it's us--end of story" or that the destruction of any (intelligent?) species is apt to be bad overall?