The purpose of life and the goal of a perfect society

[nimda]

So will you take the bet, myrkul?

No, it's highly likely that we will have the capability of destroying at least ecosystems before we run into another sentience.

The point is, that even assuming we have Nova-bombs, capable of destroying entire solar systems, MAD does not work unless we know, ahead of time, who will be attacking, and have that nova bomb aimed at their home system, and that bomb, once fired, is unstoppable. Threatening any force that comes calling with mutually assured destruction only works if you can actually pull it off. Here's a hypothetical:

First race we come into contact with is isolationist. Following Nimda's strategy of knock once, then kick the door down, we force them to trade with us. Second race we run into is not isolationist, and, perhaps, has run into the first one. Their delegates ask us how we convinced them to trade. We reply, "Oh, orbital bombardment can be quite persuasive." After a brief discussion, verifying that, yes, we did just say what they thought we said, they call home, and get together 5 or 6 races that we have never even met before, and send their fleets to Earth. When the fleets arrive, we broadcast to them, "Greetings, don't fuck with us, or we'll blow up these two systems!" They send back "That would be unfortunate, but in the end, we would simply add that to the list of your crimes. We are not from those systems."

They then proceed to turn Earth back into a molten ball of rock.

Wouldn't it be better to just leave the isolationists alone, and trade with someone else?

Will you take the bet if I simply say that "MAD will work?" I.e. we'll be able to aim it quickly, etc

[dree12]

So will you take the bet, myrkul?

No, it's highly likely that we will have the capability of destroying at least ecosystems before we run into another sentience.

The point is, that even assuming we have Nova-bombs, capable of destroying entire solar systems, MAD does not work unless we know, ahead of time, who will be attacking, and have that nova bomb aimed at their home system, and that bomb, once fired, is unstoppable. Threatening any force that comes calling with mutually assured destruction only works if you can actually pull it off. Here's a hypothetical:

First race we come into contact with is isolationist. Following Nimda's strategy of knock once, then kick the door down, we force them to trade with us. Second race we run into is not isolationist, and, perhaps, has run into the first one. Their delegates ask us how we convinced them to trade. We reply, "Oh, orbital bombardment can be quite persuasive." After a brief discussion, verifying that, yes, we did just say what they thought we said, they call home, and get together 5 or 6 races that we have never even met before, and send their fleets to Earth. When the fleets arrive, we broadcast to them, "Greetings, don't fuck with us, or we'll blow up these two systems!" They send back "That would be unfortunate, but in the end, we would simply add that to the list of your crimes. We are not from those systems."

They then proceed to turn Earth back into a molten ball of rock.

To be honest, this situation isn't very practical. Considering we're the ones doing the discovering (not the group of 5 or 6 races), we could probably take all of them down easily. I'm pretty sure mankind is the most advanced civilization in the local arm at least, if not the entire Milky Way galaxy.

I'd be willing to bet that: mankind will not discover a more advanced civilization for the shorter of your remaining lifetime and my remaining lifetime.

[myrkul]

Here's an interesting thought experiment.

What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?

Crimes of ignorance can be forgiven, I think. But to avoid this, we should find a solid definition of sentience. (note, this may mean we're not the only sentient species on the planet)

Will you take the bet if I simply say that "MAD will work?" I.e. we'll be able to aim it quickly, etc

I've already stated that I will not take the bet, as I think you're right, that we will be able to destroy, at least, ecosystems before we run into anyone else. What I am saying is that ability will do us no good. Holding a gun does you no good if it's not pointed at your attacker. Or if you don't see it coming. And more advanced races may be able to fire a black hole at earth, at relativistic speeds, from light-years away. MAD only works if it is actually mutually assured.

To be honest, this situation isn't very practical. Considering we're the ones doing the discovering (not the group of 5 or 6 races), we could probably take all of them down easily. I'm pretty sure mankind is the most advanced civilization in the local arm at least, if not the entire Milky Way galaxy.

I'd be willing to bet that: mankind will not discover a more advanced civilization for the shorter of your remaining lifetime and my remaining lifetime.

On a planetary scale, we're babies. On a galactic scale, we don't rate even a footnote. It took our planet billions of years to form and develop life. A planet formed even just a million years sooner would produce a race that is currently far, far more advanced than we. To assume we are the baddest asses on the block would be horribly naive.

[dree12]

Here's an interesting thought experiment.

What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?

Crimes of ignorance can be forgiven, I think. But to avoid this, we should find a solid definition of sentience. (note, this may mean we're not the only sentient species on the planet)

Uh-oh. That's opening up many cans of worms.

To be honest, this situation isn't very practical. Considering we're the ones doing the discovering (not the group of 5 or 6 races), we could probably take all of them down easily. I'm pretty sure mankind is the most advanced civilization in the local arm at least, if not the entire Milky Way galaxy.

I'd be willing to bet that: mankind will not discover a more advanced civilization for the shorter of your remaining lifetime and my remaining lifetime.

On a planetary scale, we're babies. On a galactic scale, we don't rate even a footnote. It took our planet billions of years to form and develop life. A planet formed even just a million years sooner would produce a race that is currently far, far more advanced than we. To assume we are the baddest asses on the block would be horribly naive.

We're at most 100 years away from developing near-light speed travel, and then we can explore the entire arm in 5000 years (0.5% of a million years). The chances that a civilization is a million years ahead yet hasn't discovered us is less than minuscule. The chances that a civilization is between 0 and 5000 years ahead of us is similarly small, this time because it's a relatively short timeframe.

At least, we aren't going to be discovering badder (note, my grammatical sense tells me to use "worse" here. I'm not sure why baddest and badder are the only words that can describe asses, because worse and worst clearly don't work.) asses in the next century or two. That is pretty much guaranteed.

[myrkul]

Indeed, declaring, say, dolphins sentient would open a huge can of worms. But I think that the can is worth opening.

We're at most 100 years away from developing near-light speed travel, and then we can explore the entire arm in 5000 years (0.5% of a million years). The chances that a civilization is a million years ahead yet hasn't discovered us is less than minuscule. The chances that a civilization is between 0 and 5000 years ahead of us is similarly small, this time because it's a relatively short timeframe.

At least, we aren't going to be discovering badder (note, my grammatical sense tells me to use "worse" here. I'm not sure why baddest and badder are the only words that can describe asses, because worse and worst clearly don't work.) asses in the next century or two. That is pretty much guaranteed.

What makes you think those badder asses haven't already discovered us, and are currently monitoring our progress? All you have done, here, is argue the case that UFOs are true alien visitors.

[dree12]

Indeed, declaring, say, dolphins sentient would open a huge can of worms. But I think that the can is worth opening.

We're at most 100 years away from developing near-light speed travel, and then we can explore the entire arm in 5000 years (0.5% of a million years). The chances that a civilization is a million years ahead yet hasn't discovered us is less than minuscule. The chances that a civilization is between 0 and 5000 years ahead of us is similarly small, this time because it's a relatively short timeframe.

At least, we aren't going to be discovering badder (note, my grammatical sense tells me to use "worse" here. I'm not sure why baddest and badder are the only words that can describe asses, because worse and worst clearly don't work.) asses in the next century or two. That is pretty much guaranteed.

What makes you think those badder asses haven't already discovered us, and are currently monitoring our progress? All you have done, here, is argue the case that UFOs are true alien visitors.

I think any badder asses would try to communicate with us (or enslave us, depending on their society), not monitor our progress. If anyone is monitoring our progress, it's the computer simulation we might be in.

Honestly, if their goal is to monitor us, UFOs are not a good method. They're easily detectable, and there are plenty of other methods. They could simply have put many satellites in orbit, undetected.

[myrkul]

I think any badder asses would try to communicate with us

[nimda]

stuff

So you say you won't take the bet that "MAD will work," then go on to say that "MAD won't work?"

[dree12]

I think any badder asses would try to communicate with us

The blog that hosts that picture, after a browse, does not seem very credible.

[myrkul]

stuff

So you say you won't take the bet that "MAD will work," then go on to say that "MAD won't work?"

No, MAD will not work, because it will not be mutually assured. That we could potentially discover how to destroy planets, or even solar systems, I won't argue. but that would need to be a credible threat before it could be a deterrent. A pistol on your hip is no threat to a sniper, nor to a mob of 50.

My point is this: It's much preferable to simply not bully everyone, than to worry about running into someone who can fight back.

The blog that hosts that picture, after a browse, does not seem very credible.

No, it doesn't. but the picture itself is indicative of a "badder ass" trying to communicate. Don't judge it because I got it off a kook's blog.

[nimda]

stuff

So you say you won't take the bet that "MAD will work," then go on to say that "MAD won't work?"

MAD will not work

I bet 5 BTC it will, or the aliens will be assured of destruction without us being assured of destruction.

[myrkul]

stuff

So you say you won't take the bet that "MAD will work," then go on to say that "MAD won't work?"

MAD will not work, because it will not be mutually assured.

I bet 5 BTC it will, or the aliens will be assured of destruction without us being assured of destruction.

I'll take that bet, then, but I'm not going to hold my breath on collecting. (or even having the opportunity to collect or pay out in my lifetime)

What say you to this?:
My point is this: It's much preferable to simply not bully everyone, than to worry about running into someone who can fight back.

[nimda]

I say that's the case in most, but not all, scenarios.

[myrkul]

I say that's the case in most, but not all, scenarios.

Why not all scenarios? And what scenarios would it not be best?

[myrkul]

Here's an interesting thought experiment.

What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?

Crimes of ignorance can be forgiven, I think. But to avoid this, we should find a solid definition of sentience. (note, this may mean we're not the only sentient species on the planet)

Uh-oh. That's opening up many cans of worms.

On the topic of sentience, I'd put forth Theory of mind as the key qualification of sentience. It can be tested for, and most animals do not have it, only some great apes (including homo sapiens of course) and interestingly, dolphins exhibit it.

[nimda]

Here's an interesting thought experiment.

What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?

Crimes of ignorance can be forgiven, I think. But to avoid this, we should find a solid definition of sentience. (note, this may mean we're not the only sentient species on the planet)

Uh-oh. That's opening up many cans of worms.

On the topic of sentience, I'd put forth Theory of mind as the key qualification of sentience. It can be tested for, and most animals do not have it, only some great apes (including homo sapiens of course) and interestingly, dolphins exhibit it.

Dolphins also have sex for pleasure and have been known to rape humans.

...

eeyup, they're sentient alright

[dree12]

Here's an interesting thought experiment.

What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?

Crimes of ignorance can be forgiven, I think. But to avoid this, we should find a solid definition of sentience. (note, this may mean we're not the only sentient species on the planet)

Uh-oh. That's opening up many cans of worms.

On the topic of sentience, I'd put forth Theory of mind as the key qualification of sentience. It can be tested for, and most animals do not have it, only some great apes (including homo sapiens of course) and interestingly, dolphins exhibit it.

(emphasis mine)
How?

[myrkul]

Here's an interesting thought experiment.

What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?

Crimes of ignorance can be forgiven, I think. But to avoid this, we should find a solid definition of sentience. (note, this may mean we're not the only sentient species on the planet)

Uh-oh. That's opening up many cans of worms.

On the topic of sentience, I'd put forth Theory of mind as the key qualification of sentience. It can be tested for, and most animals do not have it, only some great apes (including homo sapiens of course) and interestingly, dolphins exhibit it.

(emphasis mine)
How?

Well, obviously, the methods are going to change for each species, but here's the way they do it with chimps (and human kids):

Give the subject two pairs of sunglasses, of differing colors, say, one blue, one yellow. Key is that they are easily distinguishable. One of these pairs of sunglasses is totally blacked out. You cannot see out. Demonstrate this to the subject. Then, give the sunglasses to two people, each of whom has treats for the subject. Observe which treat-giver the subject approaches.  Subjects with a theory of mind will always approach the treat-giver with the sunglasses that allow them to see, and subjects without a theory of mind will approach treat-givers at random.

[dree12]

Here's an interesting thought experiment.

What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?

Crimes of ignorance can be forgiven, I think. But to avoid this, we should find a solid definition of sentience. (note, this may mean we're not the only sentient species on the planet)

Uh-oh. That's opening up many cans of worms.

On the topic of sentience, I'd put forth Theory of mind as the key qualification of sentience. It can be tested for, and most animals do not have it, only some great apes (including homo sapiens of course) and interestingly, dolphins exhibit it.

(emphasis mine)
How?

Well, obviously, the methods are going to change for each species, but here's the way they do it with chimps (and human kids):

Give the subject two pairs of sunglasses, of differing colors, say, one blue, one yellow. Key is that they are easily distinguishable. One of these pairs of sunglasses is totally blacked out. You cannot see out. Demonstrate this to the subject. Then, give the sunglasses to two people, each of whom has treats for the subject. Observe which treat-giver the subject approaches.  Subjects with a theory of mind will always approach the treat-giver with the sunglasses that allow them to see, and subjects without a theory of mind will approach treat-givers at random.

It's trivial to make a robot that can do that. Sentient robots is a problem.

[myrkul]

Well, obviously, the methods are going to change for each species, but here's the way they do it with chimps (and human kids):

Give the subject two pairs of sunglasses, of differing colors, say, one blue, one yellow. Key is that they are easily distinguishable. One of these pairs of sunglasses is totally blacked out. You cannot see out. Demonstrate this to the subject. Then, give the sunglasses to two people, each of whom has treats for the subject. Observe which treat-giver the subject approaches.  Subjects with a theory of mind will always approach the treat-giver with the sunglasses that allow them to see, and subjects without a theory of mind will approach treat-givers at random.

It's trivial to make a robot that can do that. Sentient robots is a problem.
[/quote]

It's trivial to program a robot to always approach someone with blue sunglasses. Making a robot learn that only a person who can see him will give him a treat is another thing entirely.