How would you manage a first contact?

I'm not totally sure that would necessarily be the case Parson. We are not so far from extending human life and it is not unreasonable to think that any advanced race would be able to achieve something similar. A sub FTL interstellar ship, assuming it could reach near light speed (which is plausible), could make interstellar crossings in only a decade or two subjective (ship) time which might be two or three times as long objective (universe) time. Given longevity, that is not a totally unviable situation. The ships would probably be large habitat style ships (hollowed out asteroids maybe giving good radiation shielding) with large crews that would probably constitute complete societies. I could easily imagine a nomadic culture forming that travels from star to star exploring in this way.
 
Vertigo, That's just the point. I didn't say that it would be impossible that the interstellar space could be covered with less that FTL. What I was trying to say was that such ships would be extremely rare -- because of the huge cost in building such a ship. I expect that any such ship would be a colony ship and would make at most a few voyages into the unknown. Given stellar numbers and the fact that nothing of the sort has been seen by us, I estimate that if there are any intelligent races out there, they will be far and few between and the odds of two of them meeting up are prohibitively unlikely, given those facts and the real possibility that intelligent races can quite easily destroy themselves.
 
I take your piont there Parson, though I think I have a slightly more optimistic view :eek:. However I would not think of this as a common occurence and I also quite like the idea of a nomad civilisation, where their habitats have become their homes rather than planets. Such a civilisation might wander continually from system to system, so such meetings might be relatively common for them (as in every few hundred or even thousand years). So then I got to speculating how such a civilisation would make contact if it came across us. Not likely I agree but an interesting problem all the same.
 
Our ancestors of just 300 years ago would consider the things we do today not merely miraculous, but "impossible." Things become easier with prior art. After humanity has putzed around the Solar system for a few centuries, self-sustaining colonies on what had previously been lifeless planetoids might be commonplace. By then, a generations-long star jump might seem a challenge, rather than an impossibility. Perhaps several colonies will go together, thus maintaining an inter-colony commerce similar to that back in the Solar system, just a little smaller.

Perhaps a colony planetoid will get used up, or at least run down. Then the colonists will spend some time—perhaps between the stars—turning some rogue body into a new habitat. Imagine us finding such an abandoned colony in the asteroid belt. They came, saw Earth when it was young, stayed in the Solar system for a thousand years or so, then moved on, leaving behind some of their old hardware. They'd be smart enough to strip anything left behind. If the primitive lifeforms they saw on Earth ever make it into space (unlike unfortunate Mars), the abandoned colony will challenge the Earthlings to reach higher without "giving" it to them.
 
Yeah that's sort of the way I see it. Maybe return later if they see some promise. But then you have to figure how to make safe contact...

I imagined them being forced into this way of life initially by something happening to their own planet; maybe they destroyed it as we seem to be determined to do or maybe some natural disaster such as the expansion of their star. Afterwards they would disperse (keeping such a large number of habitats organised together would be impractical) some finding other worlds to settle but some choosing to continue exploring.
 
OK then: friendly is it?

They would need to observe for some time.

I think it's fair to say they would see a planet of chaos in terms of where to make contact.

They have a few choices.

Contact all civilisations (via the UN say).

It would depend on what they were ere for. I would see this as the least useful (to them). It would bog them down in meetings and committees. The chances of getting even a simple request agreed

Please can we fill up our water tanks?

would take years. No doubt every country would want something from them, even if it's just the proof that they are what they are. No definitely not the route to take IMO.

Contact a single country.

This has more promise, again depending what they were after. At least with this option you're dealing with one entity. It would probably have to be the US as they are the ones likely to spot 'unusual' activity from space. This might be the best of a bad bunch, but such is the politics of the Earth. Others could be China, Russia, or maybe India. It would depend on the stability of the particular country at the time of arrival. It's not beyond belief that the US is waining so give it a few decades and they could be out of the picture.

The UK would not have the ability to hide the comings and goings from the other nations for them to be a viable single contact. Similarly, single country contact in Europe would soon be multiple contacts and then we're back to the equivalent of the UN.


Contact NATO.

By this I mean the leading nations via this organisation. This has promise. NATO seems to be able to give a little direction when it comes to common goals. In getting them on board the chances of an unfortunate inter planetary incident would be reduced. There's a small group of people at the top and they know about military interactions. This would be my favourite option as long ( we don't actually know if there is a them and us culture within NATO) as no one broke ranks and spilled the beans.

Contact me.:)

OK, by this I mean individual Earthlings that have influence. (So not me then:() They will need movers and shakers to shape opinion. Effectively this gives the chance to go under the head of the world leaders (Let's be honest, a useless bunch). If their existence could become accepted by the masses then the leaders may follow with the flow.

So on this basis Vertigo, I assume you have already been contacted and this thread is the opening gambit in your/ their master plan.:D
 
Muuuuhaha :D

I quite like that Tien at first glance you would think something like NATO would be your last choice. However the one bunch most likely to try something silly would be the military, so it would make sense to try and get one of the major military organisations on your side. And as you say not choosing a national military organisation removes some of those pesky layers of bureaucracy.

I had wondered about combining your last choice with one of the others. Talk to a major authority but also establish some "human ambassadors" from the street, ordinary people who would act as some kind of liason between the aliens and the media that was not under the control of a government.
 
Dunno. A vastly intelligent super-advanced alien race with technology only dreamt about here on earth, does not necessarily mean that they would be a peace loving race. Who's to say that they would not look upon earth with the same indifference we would an ant mound?

During the development of a race, eventually a 'Y' junction is met, one road to science, the other to spiritual 'enlightenment'. We have very much taken the science route, regardless of what any holy person has to say on the matter. There are a few Christians I work with who even (very rarely thankfully) spout informationm out of Christian 'scientific' magazines which have been, shall we say, influenced to backup the theory that Christianity is the only true religion. So we have taken the road to science, whether we like it or not.

So logic suggests that in order to be able to travel to our planet then the 'new comers' would have also chosen the route of science. Incredible, mind blowing technology does not necessarily mean that a race has advanced spiritually.

If contact were to happen, I would approach with caution and maintain a friendly attitude towards said 'new comers'. If they proved to be not so friendly, I probabaly wouldn't last long, but I'd respond with violence and extreme prejudice :D
 
... During the development of a race, eventually a 'Y' junction is met, one road to science, the other to spiritual 'enlightenment'. We have very much taken the science route ...

Science is telling us now that the act of perception affects what we perceive, and Buddha, etc. said that a long time ago. The 'Y' is converging back to a 'V' again ... :)
 
It has now been 35 plus years. That's not long enough, because culplable rich people still run the show. They all have to die off before the truth can emerge.
By doing this, humans have sealed their fate, as the lowest lifeform in their own solar system. No other creature is so consciously despicable, to their own kind, as the soft pink things from that planet near Mars.
Word gets around, yknow, even in a big galaxy like ours, sorry, theirs. )
 
Sigh. Oh well I suppose I should be glad there was enough time for some relevant and useful posts to come in first. Thank you to those for the useful ideas.
:(
 
Actually I don't think that is really such an issue in this case TEIN. Without FTL interstellar trade or warfare really wouldn't be very practical. The cost of transporting resources from one star system to another would make trade (or piracy) in resources (other than maybe knowledge) totally uneconomic. Warfare and maintaining an interstellar empire would be equally impractical with the huge communications delays and transit times. About the only reason to go out there would be exploration and possibly looking for colony prospects. In the latter case if there is already a technological civilisation in a system it would almost certainly be easier to find another system than to overpower the existing inhabitants of this one.

Call me an optimist but that's how I think of it. Also I did state that for this scenario I am assuming friendly contact.

Actually, thinking as a human (for once) there are even human motives which would send people out to the stars with no hope of economic advancement and thoroughly destructive consequences, and not just Niven/Pournelle's "Footfall"

Some of the nastiest involve a desire to do good for or to the culture visited. Convert them to a religion that you KNOW absolutely to be true, or the equivalent in political systems (nothing guarantees that high technology will eliminate either religious fanaticism or politics; the one cultural example we have, Earth, suggests the contrary), or introduce technology or philosophy their society is not capable of absorbing without collapse and reconstruction, leaving the survivors orphaned of their roots. Examples of both of these situations linger on on our planet now.

I could also see some more alien motives. While interstellar warfare for conquest might be impractical (have to bring everything you need with you, or set up manufacturing locally) for annihilation it's not unthinkable. For a start, just aim the drive beam from a multi-megaton vessel slowing down at one gravity at the only inhabited planet in a system for a few days. If Earth culture didn't meet a given standard of ecological responsibility, for example (and if there were such a standard I certainly suspect we wouldn't meet it). Or there could be races that needed to eliminate all competition, scouring the galaxy free of all developing sapience, and the incoming ship might be coming to warn of of those; drawing attention to the solar system while trying to help.

Good intentions, and a testament labelled "How to serve Man", do not guarantee pleasant results.
 
I agree absolutely that "good intentions" could (and probably would) cause more damage than any attempt at interstellar warfare.

Maybe I'm just an optimist (or is it pessimist I'm not too sure), but don't really think that any given race is likely to make it to the stars and still be warlike. I suspect that any races that continue with that kind of attitude will a) eventually destroy themselves long before they can reach the stars and b) would not be able to afford the huge cost of getting out to the stars whilst still spending vast amounts of money on killing each other. Let's face it if all the world's defense budgets were channelled into space we would probably have colonies on the moon and several other planets/moons by now.
 
But humanity (possibly not other species) needed the pressure of war, of combat (even if simulated in the cold war) as a stimulus to develop the engines needed to get into space. When the tension drops, do we use the spare time to concentrate on writing that book, painting the study? A few of us, perhaps, but the vast majority mend the roof when it's raining, write with the kids squabbling around us, find time to repair things when there is no time… and when breathing space arrives, we breath.

Is it the tropical paradise where sticking a hand out in a random direction brings back food that stimulates inventiveness and great art, or poverty and lack or resources? There are individual exceptions, but society as a whole reacts well to challenge.

A disciplined, organised economy should work more efficiently than wasting resources in competition, doing the same calculations in secret in five different places, wasting energy in trying to undercut those who might get there before you, putting more money into selling things than making them, shouldn't it? Unfortunately for theory, experiment has demonstrated the opposite; the mass of humanity will give 110% to stab their neighbors in the back, where they'll barely manage 80 to achieve the approval of their peers.

And space exploration is an absolute example. When it's a dedicated few battling the impossible, twenty hour days and cutting corners. When goals become realistic, health and safety bureaucrats crawl out of the woodwork, grinding progress to a halt, and suddenly (well perceived suddenly, anyway) the nation that got to the moon in ten years from a practically standing start couldn't make it back in twenty, despite technological advances and all the data from the first great leap.

I hope your visitors' space drive is perceived slowing down towards the solar system; that panic you've decried might be just what's needed to bump start the working rather than administration society, and is less dangerous than a full scale war or a dinosaur killer hitting the planet.

Just.
 
Actually that's pretty close to my thoughts. I suspect we won't be going to the stars or at least the planets until things on Earth are so dire that we have no choice. That kind of incentive should work almost as well as war.

I also think that we are not likely to be very far different from any other technological race. I suspect that intelligence and technology is only likely to happen with species that need it, after all that's how natural selection works. I don't think pure carnivores are likely to develop this way. They are smart, yes, but tend to have tunnel vision; if it's not to do with the hunt or procreation it is of no interest. As for herbivores they have even worse tunnel vision in some ways and running fast is far more useful than being smart.

On the other hand omnivores have a much a much broader way of thinking. They are more experimental, as they already know that there are many different possible food sources that will suit them, so they are more likely to experiment. Also I think such an evolution is only likely to happen amongst arboreal species since for the most part they are the only ones likely to develop gripping hands that can develop tools.

So my suspicion is that most technological civilistations are likely to come from arboreal omnivores. Also the more varied possiblities for food require learning and such species tend to nuture there young more. This will produce social groups which in turn will produce territorial behaviour. Sure all predators tend to be territorial but lacking the other qualities I don't see them evolving tool use; how would tools help wolves or tigers hunt for their food and giving up two of their limbs to manipulate tools would only slow them down and work against their survial.

So that's my pet theory and unfortunately that does mean that I supect intelligent tool users will always be territorial social species which almost inevitably will result in conflict.

However I still think a species will never successfully leave their planet until they have overcome that part of their instincts, before those instincts, combined with advanced technology, end up killing them off.
 
Vertigo, great post. I would agree with what you say here, but I would make one caveat. We only have one eco-system as a basis for our analysis. We (the system) might be exceptional in some way that we don't even recognize. To some degree it sounds like the social Darwinists who came up with some really stupid racial ideas that they knew were right. All they had to do to prove their point was to look how things were at that moment in history. That proof proved to be anything but permanent and woefully wrong.
 
Your arguments, while seductively reasonable, are based on the observation of exactly one planet; and even there rats and elephants have developed manipulation and considerable intelligence without swinging from branches. The anthropic principle: we must be as we are because the universe is like that (which gets you a Star Wars bar with lots of aliens looking like Hollywood extras in costumes even when you CGI them.

Look at a lizard's front paws, and think of a bipedal dinosaur. Omnivorous, if you prefer. There's no particular reason it couldn't develop towards tool using by observation, rather than direct parental education. Harry Harrison made a good argument for it in his "West of Eden" trilogy (or try Sawyer's "Foreigner"). I don't say it's perfect, but life has covered so many bases on the one planet we do know I'd say the "made in God's image" argument should be held back until we've investigated another ten or twelve planets bearing sapient lifeforms.
 
So my suspicion is that most technological civilistations are likely to come from arboreal omnivores.

James P. Hogan's "Giants" stories describe a race (the Ganymeans) completely devoid of all violent behavior due to their evolutionary biology. (It's been a while since I read the series, but I believe they are vegetarians.)

Especially interesting is the contrast between humans and Ganymeans—one human civilization grew up on Earth, while another developed alongside the Ganymeans. And now the Ganymeans seek the help of Earthmen in understanding their counterparts because Earthmen think in a similarly devious way.
 
I agree with all of you :) I am fully aware that my observations are only based on a single planet but I feel they are logical and until we find some more examples I can only say that I personaly suspect that this is the way things are. Obviously I cannot know (though Lord would I ever like to :))

Also Chris, I agree that there are exceptions. As you say dinosaurs that stood on two legs could have developed the ability to manipulate tools, but I suspect there would not have been an evolutionary drive for that sort of lateral thinking. They were probably very effective predators as they were and for most of them that stood on two legs their arms, rather than developing as manipulators, seemed to be retreating to rather useless little limbs. I can't believe T Rex could realy do very much with those arms.

Rats and ideed many other predators are interesting in that they are clearly smart. Very necessary to be flexible enough to use the varying landscapes where their prey is. Things like; there's no good cover but there is a depression that could be used, where is the wind coming from etc. but I don't believe they will ever go beyond that without a pressing evolutionary need to free up their front limbs for manipulation.

Oddities like elephants could theoretically advance with their manipulative trunks but with only one manipulator you are limited by the inability to exerted opposing forces, twisting etc.

Another one is octopuses, again clearly smart and with multiple tentacles they can do twisting etc. However I think any purely water based speices faces a huge problem to evolve into a technological species as they don't get to discover fire, without which making even a hardened sharp spear is very difficult. Yes they might be able to use hot underwater vents in some way but I still think without mastery of fire any evolution of technology is very unlikely. I am always highly skeptical of books with ater based intelligent aliens.

I am still highly skeptical of any pure herbivore developing significant intelligence and going on to technology. I just don't see the same evolutionary drive. They simply don't need to do much thinking to find their food.

We can of course only speculate but my belief is that advanced intelligence will only come to mammalian type species. Species that protect their young in nice safe wombs (or analogs of) whilst they develop much further than would be possible in, say, eggs and then go on to nuture and teach their young (instinctive knowledge can never provide the flexible knowlege that teaching can.

I don't like to rule it out completely, I think if an herbivore did develop intelligence and tool use it would be fascinating to see as I suspect they would not develop aggressive warlike tendencies. Although herbivores might fight for the privilege to mate I don't think they very often fight for territory (though I may well be wrong there), so one herd fighting another just doesn't seem that likely.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top