Do you think much more advanced aliens have solved their ethical and moral dilemmas?

[Soulless49er]

If there are any advanced alien civilizations out there that are way ahead of humans technologically, do you think most of them would have solved their ethical and moral problems like warfare, crime, and prejudice? I realize alien civilizations may be so far different from us that they may not even comprehend these terms, but say hypothetically there are some who are like us enough to know what they mean and entail... do you think they would be far more moral and less prone to warfare since they possess far greater technology?

I am on the side that they may very well may not be anymore ethical than us. Think about if humans today went back into the past by 3,000 years and showed those ancient people our technology like IPads, cell phones, airplanes, and cars. Those people would probably look at such technology and think we have solved all our problems and no longer have negative traits like warfare, crime, and prejudice, etc. Yet they would be very wrong. Technology has increased exponentially but those issues still rear their ugly head seemingly everywhere. Maybe aliens have interstellar ships and telepathic communication but they still have hatred and use warfare?

[SolusLupus]

Well, I would say that modern civilization has made a lot of headway. Less people die from warfare within the past few decades, standard of living is vastly improved, lifespan for the average person has also been improved, medicine, etc. Slavery is almost non-existent compared to the past. Crime still exists, but it's probably far easier to deal with than in the past, and we don't torture confessions out of people or put them in dank cells that's as likely to cause them to die from malnourishment or infection as it is just to hold them.

But will crime cease to exist? Will prejudice cease to exist? Dunno, but I doubt it.

Also, I'd add that you shouldn't confuse media coverage with an increase or equal amount in incidents occurring.

[LotusExcelle]

Well, I would say that modern civilization has made a lot of headway. Less people die from warfare within the past few decades, standard of living is vastly improved, lifespan for the average person has also been improved, medicine, etc. Crime still exists, but it's probably far easier to deal with than in the past, and we don't torture confessions out of people or put them in dank cells that's as likely to cause them to die from malnourishment or infection as it is just to hold them.

But will crime cease to exist? Will prejudice cease to exist? Dunno, but I doubt it.

This might be a touchy subject but we do indeed still torture and keep them in poor conditions.

[SolusLupus]

This might be a touchy subject but we do indeed still torture and keep them in poor conditions.

In the same rate as existed in the BCs? 600s? 1200s? 1700s? 1800s?

I kind of doubt it. Now it's become more a peripheral issue in certain countries or in certain prisons involving individuals that fall within a gray line of neither combatant or civilian -- it is not the case in the mainstream prison system. Not that I'm saying that all prisons are pristine, but I think you're misrepresenting the case.

A couple hundred of years ago, it was customary to torture a prisoner to extract information from them, even if their crime was minor. In fact, it was standard operating procedure, practically worldwide; in China, in Japan, and in Europe. The case doesn't exactly improve when you regress in time.

There's also the case that a lot of places have wiped out the death penalty entirely, whereas a few hundred years ago, you could get the death penalty for pickpocketing in England.

[Nereid]

If there any advanced alien civilizations out there that are way ahead of humans technologically, do you think most of them would have solved their ethical and moral problems like warfare, crime, and prejudice? I realize alien civilizations may be so far different from us that they may not even comprehend these terms, but say hypothetically there are some who are like us enough to know what they mean and entail... do you think they would be far more moral and less prone to warfare since they possess far greater technology?

I am on the side that they may very well may not be anymore ethical than us. Think about if humans today went back into the past by 3,000 years and showed those ancient people our technology like IPads, cell phones, airplanes, and cars. Those people would probably look at such technology and think we have solved all our problems and no longer have negative traits like warfare, crime, and prejudice, etc. Yet they would be very wrong. Technology has increased exponentially but those issues still rear their ugly head seemingly everywhere. Maybe aliens have interstellar ships and telepathic communication but they still have hatred and use warfare?
Is there any way to examine the questions in your post, from a scientific perspective?

It seems to me the only thing one can do is engage in pure speculation ...

[SolusLupus]

The way he phrased his opening post, I was under the impression that this was purely a speculative question in the first place. Notably use of the term "do you think..."

[Jens]

If there any advanced alien civilizations out there that are way ahead of humans technologically, do you think most of them would have solved their ethical and moral problems like warfare, crime, and prejudice?

Not really to stake a claim to anything scientific, but I think it is worthwhile to examine your assumptions. Are warfare, crime, and prejudice "ethical and moral problems"? While they may in many cases not be desirable, can't it be said that war and crime are inevitable in a world with limited resources, and that prejudice is necessary for making distinctions between things? This may sound absurd, but the reason we don't pick up rocks and bite into them is that we have a prejudice against rocks. The problem is really how far that emotion is taken. The existence of prejudice itself isn't really. Babies feel cozy when held by their own mothers and sometimes scared when held by others. And regarding warfare, having a police force and courts is a good thing because it stops villagers from killing one another over water resources, but it's just a more humane way to manage the competition over resources, not an end to it. So the question may be better phrases as "will they have better ways to manage problems."

[SolusLupus]

Out of curiosity and entirely not important to the subject, wouldn't use of the word "humane" be made rather meaningless when referring directly to extraterrestrial life forms?

[Nereid]

The way he phrased his opening post, I was under the impression that this was purely a speculative question in the first place. Notably use of the term "do you think..."
I agree, but I'd like to see if how the OP responds.

[SolusLupus]

Fair enough.

[Soulless49er]

Is there any way to examine the questions in your post, from a scientific perspective?

It seems to me the only thing one can do is engage in pure speculation ...

I apologize if most members here want something less speculative and more scientifically established. When it comes to alien life, I find it hard to discuss something that's not speculative. There doesn't seem to be any established scientific data to do anything other than speculate about alien civilizations. Correct me if I'm wrong. To my eyes, the only place we can look to is how human behavior has changed with technology on this topic. Plus I still find speculation interesting and thinking about the possibilities is captivating to me even if there's no evidence for any of it yet.

[Nereid]

I apologize if most members here want something less speculative and more scientifically established.
No need to apologise; I just wanted to know.


When it comes to alien life, I find it hard to discuss something that's not speculative.
I think you're right ... but many discussions about life can lead to questions that might, if well-posed, be capable of being answered, using what we know about biology (say).

Myself I think almost all questions about alien civilisations are hopelessly speculative (Homo sap. has had civilisations for what, 10,000 years? and 10,000 years is what, geologically speaking?).

Ditto about intelligence (modulo some extremely carefully thought out questions).


There doesn't seem to be any established scientific data to do anything other than speculate about alien civilizations. Correct me if I'm wrong. To my eyes, the only place we can look to is how human behavior has changed with technology on this topic.
Indeed.

But don't you need to be able to extrapolate, from human history, at least 10,000 years into the future? Or, perhaps, at a minimum a million years?

A good test of just how limited any such extrapolations would be is to ask questions such as "What did our ancestors, in Ancient Egypt, think of the likely success of SETI, based on observing in the 'water hole'?"


Plus I still find speculation interesting and thinking about the possibilities is captivating to me even if there's no evidence for any of it yet.
And I think OTBB would be a great place to have such speculative discussions! :)

Myself, I think LiS should be a place where we assume there is a certain minimum of application of at least the scientific method, as well as (perhaps) some results from contemporary science.

[Infinitenight2093]

If there are any advanced alien civilizations out there that are way ahead of humans technologically, do you think most of them would have solved their ethical and moral problems like warfare, crime, and prejudice? I realize alien civilizations may be so far different from us that they may not even comprehend these terms, but say hypothetically there are some who are like us enough to know what they mean and entail... do you think they would be far more moral and less prone to warfare since they possess far greater technology?

I am on the side that they may very well may not be anymore ethical than us. Think about if humans today went back into the past by 3,000 years and showed those ancient people our technology like IPads, cell phones, airplanes, and cars. Those people would probably look at such technology and think we have solved all our problems and no longer have negative traits like warfare, crime, and prejudice, etc. Yet they would be very wrong. Technology has increased exponentially but those issues still rear their ugly head seemingly everywhere. Maybe aliens have interstellar ships and telepathic communication but they still have hatred and use warfare?

Yes, I believe that it is likely that any highly advanced civilization would have moved on from war and (maybe) all conflict amongst themselves. However, that doesn't rule out war with other highly advanced civilizations...

[tony1967]

Is altruism an evolutionary advantage?

[swampyankee]

I think that any technologically advanced civilization needs a minimum level of large scale cooperation, so I don't think that one would see something like a high-tech civilization without large cities, a history of intraspecies conflict, and a history of tottering from one problem to another. Either the culture will come to a pragmatic level of cooperation to keep from wiping themselves out, or not.

How individuals and minorities are treated is a completely different question. I don't believe that there is any reason for a technologically advanced society to be misogynistic or racist or differentiated by social class, but I also don't believe there's any reason it can't be.

So, no, I don't think that an advanced alien race would necessarily be morally more advanced than humanity presently is or historically has been.

[Nereid]

I think that any technologically advanced civilization needs a minimum level of large scale cooperation, so I don't think that one would see something like a high-tech civilization without large cities, a history of intraspecies conflict, and a history of tottering from one problem to another. Either the culture will come to a pragmatic level of cooperation to keep from wiping themselves out, or not.

How individuals and minorities are treated is a completely different question. I don't believe that there is any reason for a technologically advanced society to be misogynistic or racist or differentiated by social class, but I also don't believe there's any reason it can't be.

So, no, I don't think that an advanced alien race would necessarily be morally more advanced than humanity presently is or historically has been.
What if the species which has the technologically advanced civilisation is more like ants, bees, and termites than Homo saps?

What does being misogynistic or racist or differentiated by social class mean to bees?

[Nereid]

Is altruism an evolutionary advantage?
It depends, according to those study this, on the fine details of reproduction - why do so many soldier ants 'willingly' sacrifice themselves, in fighting, when they will never have offspring of their own?

How does altruism work in a truly polyandrous (or polygamous) society?

[Ilya]

What if the species which has the technologically advanced civilisation is more like ants, bees, and termites than Homo saps?

What does being misogynistic or racist or differentiated by social class mean to bees?
Well, OP did say: "I realize alien civilizations may be so far different from us that they may not even comprehend these terms [warfare, crime, and prejudice]", and was asking specifically about civilizations more or less like ourselves.

But this gives me a wicked thought. I almost always get angry when I see philosphers (or science fiction writers) moan how bad and backward humans are, and how horrifying we must appear to any enlightened aliens. Well, suppose we are actually LEAST xenophobic and LEAST warlike civilization in existence?

Try to imagine intelligent creatures evolved from paranoid herd herbivores, or infanticidal territorial predators, or indeed eusocial insects (ever seen what happens when two ant colonies come into contact?). I wonder if our hierarchical/social ape heritage, with penchant for dominance displays and mutual grooming, is as conducive to meeting strangers peacefully as it ever gets -- and we still are not very good at it!

[Ilya]

It depends, according to those study this, on the fine details of reproduction - why do so many soldier ants 'willingly' sacrifice themselves, in fighting, when they will never have offspring of their own?

Is that a rhetorical question? Soldier ants sacrifice themselves for the same reason your white blood cells sacrifice themselves on an intruding thorn. An organism is just a gene's way or making another gene, and in case of ants best way for genes to replicate is to spend some energy on making non-reproducing mobile defense units. In case of vertebrates it also holds true, except defense units are smaller, and remain inside an organism.

[George]

The keystone to the evolutianary views of both Darwin and Wallace lies in the consequences that come from what Rev. Thomas Malthus pointed out: population growth of species is faster than food growth. This is logically the case for life forms regardless of their host planet. The competitive result that ensues will likely accentuate moral issues for any inteligent species.

But to what degree will they abuse themselves and their environment? Add your choice of religious views and the question gets even more complicated. I favor the idea that good and evil are probably more accentuated here than elsewhere. We seem too quick to react passionately about things, which often leads to problems for all of us later. Perhaps other exoplanetary societies are blessed with greater logic skills and have less temptations. Who knows? Not even the Shadow knows. :)

[George]

But this gives me a wicked thought. I almost always get angry when I see philosphers (or science fiction writers) moan how bad and backward humans are, and how horrifying we must appear to any enlightened aliens. Well, suppose we are actually LEAST xenophobic and LEAST warlike civilization in existence? Such a positive view by such philosophers, however, is a little more logical given that the odds favor the discovery of intelligent life that is much older that our short history. So other life may indeed be better behaved since they are not extinct. If they were myopic in their views of life, then they may have destroyed themselves much as we now see on Easter Island and elsewhere.


Try to imagine intelligent creatures evolved from paranoid herd herbivores, or infanticidal territorial predators, or indeed eusocial insects (ever seen what happens when two ant colonies come into contact?). I wonder if our hierarchical/social ape heritage, with penchant for dominance displays and mutual gooming, is as conducive to meeting strangers peacefully as it ever gets -- and we still are not very good at it! I choose the herbivores. :)

[Nereid]

Well, OP did say: "I realize alien civilizations may be so far different from us that they may not even comprehend these terms [warfare, crime, and prejudice]", and was asking specifically about civilizations more or less like ourselves.

But this gives me a wicked thought. I almost always get angry when I see philosphers (or science fiction writers) moan how bad and backward humans are, and how horrifying we must appear to any enlightened aliens. Well, suppose we are actually LEAST xenophobic and LEAST warlike civilization in existence?

Try to imagine intelligent creatures evolved from paranoid herd herbivores, or infanticidal territorial predators, or indeed eusocial insects (ever seen what happens when two ant colonies come into contact?). I wonder if our hierarchical/social ape heritage, with penchant for dominance displays and mutual grooming, is as conducive to meeting strangers peacefully as it ever gets -- and we still are not very good at it!
True.

So let's explore this a bit, starting with "advanced alien civilizations out there that are way ahead of humans technologically"

Specifically, let's try to get a handle on "way ahead of humans technologically".

Within the lifetimes of those reading this post today, their parents, and grandparents, where did technology start, and where is it today.

Then: Lots of mechanical stuff - wheels, pulleys, etc - and the harnessing of (at least some) fossil fuels and (some) 'sustainable' energy sources (windmills, watermills, maybe dung and firewood); a pretty good, if basic, handle on infectious diseases and how to prevent (and, in some cases, cure) them; and so on.

Now: the internet, nuclear power, electricity, the green revolution, the beginnings of the application of evolutionary biology to medicine and agriculture, ATM machines, trans-continental aeroplanes, predator drones, IEDs; and so on.

And that's just 150, 200 years, tops.

OK, so who's going to try to extrapolate 1,000 years into the future? 1 million? Who knows, maybe in a thousand years' time the Earth will be well on its way to becoming the next Venus, and already a planet which is all extremophiles' heaven (saying 'sorry' to Gaia won't really cut it)?

[MaDeR]

OK, so who's going to try to extrapolate 1,000 years into the future? 1 million?
Really predicting such things is impossible. This is real Singularity (not this transhumanist I-feel-so-good-everything-wonderous-will-be-in-my-lifetime dumbosity). Point of view, not state.

[John Jaksich]

Souless49er


This is an intriguing question--but (and here comes my personal outlook and understanding w/o going into moralistic speculation--)----our evolutionary neurology ( and someone correct me if I am wrong ) - has definitely been shaped by how our brain-stem tends to influence fight/flight responses. We have adapted to dangerous situations--running from large animals and learning to work in groups to bring down those large beasts for food---

Even the very notion you propose ( although it surely is not meant to antagonize the forum will have its detractors ) is impossible for the fact that you and I ----and everyone here do not and can not readily live life without the fight/flight response, currently. To the best of my knowledge --no can readily exist without the reptilian-type brain-stem, currently.

How long will it take for us to quell blood-thirst response---> no one can say for sure----

How do we know what it is like to live in a such a contradictory state? We won't really know until we encounter these ETs and know them for the first time--as non-predatory---but will we be non-predatory? I doubt it!

[Ilya]

Such a positive view by such philosophers, however, is a little more logical given that the odds favor the discovery of intelligent life that is much older that our short history. So other life may indeed be better behaved since they are not extinct. If they were myopic in their views of life, then they may have destroyed themselves much as we now see on Easter Island and elsewhere.

First, I'd like to point out that humans on Easter Island never actually went extinct. In fact, when Europeans discovered the island, the population was not much smaller than at its peak. They just did not have enough surplus to build the statues any more. Amazing how many people point at Easter Island as "perfect example of civilization collapse", when it was more like "ratchet down", and not terribly far down. You want to look at pre-modern human activity causing environmental (AND civilization) collapse, overgrazing of North Africa is the real deal.

Second, there is a huge scale between "destroyed themselves because of their myopic views" and "solved ethical and moral problems as we see them". I can easily imagine an advanced civilization which considers all wildlife a wasteful nuisance, and reduced their own biosphere to machine-like simplicity, optimized to convert sunlight into protein. The would see our idea of "protecting" useless species, let alone dangerous predators, as insane. We would see them as egotistical and ruthless.


I choose the herbivores. :)
You are a meat-eater. They would kill you on sight. :) That was my point about "paranoid herd herbivores".

[George]

First, I'd like to point out that humans on Easter Island never actually went extinct. In fact, when Europeans discovered the island, the population was not much smaller than at its peak. That's a good point, though their 97% or greater population decrease came much as a result of their abuse to their own environment. Times of cannibalism were not likely helpful to their advancements.


They just did not have enough surplus to build the statues any more. The forests are essentially gone and the consequences go much beyond ahu and moai construction. No trees, no canoes, no transportation. Soil errosion was another problem. The overpopulation and "collapse" (800 AD - 1600 AD) came long before Europeans arrived. Biota extinction, including the great Rapa Nui Palm, was likely their fault.


You want to look at pre-modern human activity causing environmental (AND civilization) collapse, overgrazing of North Africa is the real deal. I know very little of this account but I was going to mention the Anasazi originally, but Easter Island is better known, but I should have not lead into their history with extinction in mind.

The point is, however, that we must consider the possibility of the extinction of intelligent life. Can it happen on other worlds for reasons similar to our three examples, only much worse? Maybe.

[George]

You are a meat-eater. They would kill you on sight. :) That was my point about "paranoid herd herbivores". :) I see your point.
From an old movie I watched as a kid, I always liked the idea of riding a friendly brontosaurus (old movie remember). I'm sure I could make friends with your herbivores, given enough carrots. ;)

[SolusLupus]

If they're truly paranoid, they'd most likely think you were just using carrots to get close and kill them. Ergo, they'd kill you first.

They'd also have to be rather stupid to think you could ingest them, given their evolution would be different, but some humans think that aliens will want to eat them, so...

[Noclevername]

Is altruism an evolutionary advantage?

Social animals are social because cooperation is an evolutionary advantage. (Nitpick: if something provides an advantage it isn't altruism by definition.)

[SolusLupus]

(Nitpick: if something provides an advantage it isn't altruism by definition.)

Which is why "Altruism" in terms of biology and evolution will fundamentally be different than philosophical "altruism".

[George]

If they're truly paranoid, they'd most likely think you were just using carrots to get close and kill them. Ergo, they'd kill you first.

They'd also have to be rather stupid to think you could ingest them, given their evolution would be different, but some humans think that aliens will want to eat them, so... That's a good point. Perhaps I should show them the movie, especially if they look like apatosaurses. ;)

[agingjb]

I would expect an advanced culture to have solved such problems, ethical or otherwise, that it needed to solve to become an advanced culture. But whether an alien culture has solved, or even addressed, our ethical problems is another question entirely.

[Ilya]

I would expect an advanced culture to have solved such problems, ethical or otherwise, that it needed to solve to become an advanced culture. But whether an alien culture has solved, or even addressed, our ethical problems is another question entirely.
Or even recognized then as "problems" at all.

Reminds me of a story where aliens arrive on overcrowded and (more or less) starving Earth, and provide an unlimited supply of meat. Humans are grateful. Then they find out that meat is vat-grown human tissue culture. Furor ensues. Aliens cannot understand what we are complaining about -- they were acting out of most altruistic motives, and supplied us with most nutritious (to us), most hypoallergenic, 100% cruelty-free food possible.

[SolusLupus]

[...] and supplied us with most nutritious (to us) [...]

I was unaware that human flesh is the most nutritious kind of meat available to human beings. I can see why someone could be led to believe that, since we're all humans, but there's stuff that gets lost in the processing, I would think, which is one of the reasons why we prefer to eat herbivores and not carnivores. Then there's also that there's nutrients unavailable in human flesh that we require from plantlife (why we're omnivorous, and not carnivorous). For one thing, human meat does not contain fiber.

Just a nitpick. The overall idea you posit is interesting.

[uwbrother]

If there are any advanced alien civilizations out there that are way ahead of humans technologically, do you think most of them would have solved their ethical and moral problems like warfare, crime, and prejudice? I realize alien civilizations may be so far different from us that they may not even comprehend these terms, but say hypothetically there are some who are like us enough to know what they mean and entail... do you think they would be far more moral and less prone to warfare since they possess far greater technology?

I am on the side that they may very well may not be anymore ethical than us. Think about if humans today went back into the past by 3,000 years and showed those ancient people our technology like IPads, cell phones, airplanes, and cars. Those people would probably look at such technology and think we have solved all our problems and no longer have negative traits like warfare, crime, and prejudice, etc. Yet they would be very wrong. Technology has increased exponentially but those issues still rear their ugly head seemingly everywhere. Maybe aliens have interstellar ships and telepathic communication but they still have hatred and use warfare?

No.
As long as we are humans, we will have our biology. Even 1 million years from today we'll be same cuz that's who we are. We became advanced because of our ambition but that's closely tied to greed. You can't have a race of ambitious achievers and not have some who bend a few laws to fullfill their ambition. I can't speak for aliens, I dont know any, but we are who we are. 5000 years ago kings would start war to increase their empire and today governments start wars to benefit one way or another.

(I should say though, aliens could be anything. I mean, you can have a super advance race of aliens that are extremely violent and competitive with no biological concept of empathy or conscious. Or you can have super peaceful aliens who survive by avoiding all contact with even primitive races because these aliens would rather avoid you than risk harming you. Who really knows).

[Ozzy]

Is our desire for space travel driven by the primitive (reptilian) part of our brain? We want to own and control more property.

If the brain of an individual in alien race that did not evolve from a reptilian type of brain, would they even desire space travel? Are the ethical problems of our race a by product of the hidden desires of the reptilian brain, the same desires that drive us to develop spacecraft? Boom shanka }-)

[baric]

They have to eliminate war.

Not only is war one of the most incredible waste of resources, it also becomes exponentially more lethal as technology increases.

I'm not convinced that a species that evolves violent impulses to ensure survival can adapt to technology quickly enough to avoid self-extinction.

[Ilya]

Actually, war requires more that a penchant for violence. It also requires penchant for organization and leader-follower social dynamics.

I can easily imagine a violent species (possibly more so than ours) with no wars, and all violence small-scale and personal -- if "follow the leader" is not how their brains work.

<Alien version of Menelaus>: "That ******* stole my wife!"

<Alien version of Achilles>: "My sincere sympathy, and may his skull look good on your wall! Good luck!" (goes back to plowing his field)

[SolusLupus]

Of course, such a species is unlikely to be space faring, as they're unlikely to get to the point of major businesses and shareholders (which was where the major manufacturing came in; I cannot see a spacefaring civilization without it).

[eburacum45]

Actually, war requires more that a penchant for violence. It also requires penchant for organization and leader-follower social dynamics.

I can easily imagine a violent species (possibly more so than ours) with no wars, and all violence small-scale and personal -- if "follow the leader" is not how their brains work.
A species of an a-social but highly competitive and ferociously intelligent aliens could be quite dangerous. Without any socially accepted forms of behaviour they would be free to behave in almost any fashion. Instead of establishing 'leader-follower' social dynamics and patterns of dominance and submission, a member of a solitary species could still negotiate with other intelligent beings to form temporary alliances. Such an ad-hoc form of interaction could be more flexible than the interactions that occur within species which are hardwired to act socially. An individual in an a-social species could routinely use violence, temporary alliances, combat, deceit and betrayal to achieve its goals.

Everyday life in such a society might not be endangered by organised warfare, but it could be constantly be made uncomfortable by the independent but self-serving activity of your asocial neighbours, who would only consider your own welfare if it can benefit their own.

Life in such an environment would be an arms race, and ultimately the entity with the best array of armaments would win.

[swampyankee]

A species of an a-social but highly competitive and ferociously intelligent aliens could be quite dangerous. Without any socially accepted forms of behaviour they would be free to behave in almost any fashion. Instead of establishing 'leader-follower' social dynamics and patterns of dominance and submission, a member of a solitary species could still negotiate with other intelligent beings to form temporary alliances. Such an ad-hoc form of interaction could be more flexible than the interactions that occur within species which are hardwired to act socially. An individual in an a-social species could routinely use violence, temporary alliances, combat, deceit and betrayal to achieve its goals.

Everyday life in such a society might not be endangered by organised warfare, but it could be constantly be made uncomfortable by the independent but self-serving activity of your asocial neighbours, who would only consider your own welfare if it can benefit their own.

Life in such an environment would be an arms race, and ultimately the entity with the best array of armaments would win.

I don't think an asocial species could develop technology much past knapping flint, though, so I don't think we have to worry about a species of asocial, violent, aggressive aliens rampaging along the spaceways.

[eburacum45]

But it is possible that asocial entities might emerge later, perhaps as a result of research into artificial minds or genetically engineered beings. A solitary mind navigating an exploring interstellar spacecraft might benefit from being self-reliant, self sufficient and fiercely interested in its own self-preservation. If such a mind was predisposed to loneliness or desired the company of other entities too much, it might be likely to turn the ship round and head back to civilisation.

[swampyankee]

But it is possible that asocial entities might emerge later, perhaps as a result of research into artificial minds or genetically engineered beings. A solitary mind navigating an exploring interstellar spacecraft might benefit from being self-reliant, self sufficient and fiercely interested in its own self-preservation. If such a mind was predisposed to loneliness or desired the company of other entities too much, it might be likely to turn the ship round and head back to civilisation.

But asocial doesn't necessarily mean either violent or aggressive, and one would think a reasonably sane culture would not put asocial and violently aggressive sentients in charge of anything that could be dangerous. "I want to be alone" need not imply "...and I'll kill everybody else so I can be."

[eburacum45]

Asocial beings need not be psychopaths, but they may be ruthless and highly competitive. I can imagine a situation where numerous highly advanced entities compete against each other, with the least successful entities either eliminated or absorbed by the more successful ones. If advanced entities can routinely absorb other minds, they may do so whenever given the opportunity; soon there would be only a few major intellects, behaving more like sovereign nations than individuals.
Not all sovereign nations in our world are equally enlightened, and the same could be said of hypothetical collective or assimilative advanced entities.

[ravens_cry]

One could also imagine a species that, while it has long resolved it's intra-species ethical and moral differences, is completely and utterly xenophobic, hostile to all true outsiders.
Or an species where the woman and young live in groups, but the men live off by themselves, extremely intelligent, but asocial to the point they recognize no other mind but their own.

[Ilya]

Or an species where the woman and young live in groups, but the men live off by themselves, extremely intelligent, but asocial to the point they recognize no other mind but their own.
Elephants are like that

[ravens_cry]

Elephants are like that
Yes, that was my thought too when I was writing that. Now imagine a advanced tool using intelligence like that. You might have an equivalent of nature preserves where the atavistic men lived their lives, that the women of the civilisation, singly or in groups, would visit to couple when in a state of aphrodisia.

[Noclevername]

We can't even guess what the moral and ethical dilemmas of an alien species would be, let alone how long they would take to solve, or if they're even solvable at all. We aren't even sure if our own such problems are solvable in an absolute sense-- although many of them can and have been reduced in scope. To clarify-- what does the OP mean by "solve"? Does it mean "to get rid of entirely"? Or just "to manage reasonably well"?

[Caelus]

I don't know about alien morality, but I think that it is a safe bet that any advanced race became that way as a result of warfare (at least any race with a psychology remotely similar to our own). If you look back through our history, technological advancement came about largely as a result of conflict. Look at where technology was just 100 years ago, in 1910, and look at where it is now. In that span of time, there were three world-encompassing conflicts: World Wars I and II and the Cold War.

Aircraft was developed primarily because it gave combatants an edge, not because people needed to be flown to different areas of the world. Air travel was only possible because jet engines were developed as a result of the great powers' fear of each other.

Computers were developed in an effort to obtain or maintain an advantage in the intelligence field, so that each side could keep track of the other and anticipate their next move. World of Warcraft and internet forums were not a consideration when computers were being developed.

Development of spacecraft was a result of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. needing to beat the other to the moon. The arms race and the space race were really one and the same, and rockets and missiles use the same technology to carry out their respective purposes. Satellites are here because these countries needed to spy on one another, and DirecTV is just a side product of conflict.

I am sure that there are probably other examples that I could use of technology being spurred by conflict, but I can't come up with any at the moment. As far as humans go, I have no doubt that war is here to stay as long as we are not the Borg. As long as there is a difference of opinion, there will always be the threat of war.

[baric]

I don't know about alien morality, but I think that it is a safe bet that any advanced race became that way as a result of warfare (at least any race with a psychology remotely similar to our own). If you look back through our history, technological advancement came about largely as a result of conflict.

Geometry
Astronomy
Antibiotics

Those 3 sprang up in like 5 seconds. I'm sure I could think of a lot more.

I will grant you that warfare greatly accelerated the rise of technology with regards to weapons.

But how often was technology set *back* as a result of violence? Dark Ages, anyone? Who's to say that a non-violent species would not have progressed even faster?

[Jens]

Elephants are like that

Humans are like that.

[ravens_cry]

Humans are like that.
They are?
Not really, humans, though not as much as some species, are on the whole more active then many mammals in the whole fatherhood thing and the males usually live in the same community as the young and woman.

[Jens]

They are?
Not really, humans, though not as much as some species, are on the whole more active then many mammals in the whole fatherhood thing and the males usually live in the same community as the young and woman.

I'm not sure, but I think in primitive human society it was common for men to have sort of separate communities, and that they would tend to go on hunting expeditions while the women and children stayed in an encampment. And boys would be moved from the women community to the men community at some given age. I know that some monkeys have social groups that are like that, with the males living on the outskirts of the core community, which is composed of females and children.

[ravens_cry]

I'm not sure, but I think in primitive human society it was common for men to have sort of separate communities, and that they would tend to go on hunting expeditions while the women and children stayed in an encampment. And boys would be moved from the women community to the men community at some given age. I know that some monkeys have social groups that are like that, with the males living on the outskirts of the core community, which is composed of females and children.
Hunting expeditions, sure. Humans historically used their cooperative and tool using skills to bring down far larger prey then otherwise possible.
But that's very different from elephants where the males only return during mating season. Human children are too fragile for the paternal instinct too strong to be a cultural artefact alone, though the expected level of interaction and protection varies cultural. Yes, there is monkeys with a similar system to elephants, and there are apes, gibbons if I recall right, who are monogamous, something that in humans is relatively recent cultural artefact.
Simply saying some primates have one system does not mean humans do.

[tony1967]

One could also imagine a species that, while it has long resolved it's intra-species ethical and moral differences, is completely and utterly xenophobic, hostile to all true outsiders.
Or an species where the woman and young live in groups, but the men live off by themselves, extremely intelligent, but asocial to the point they recognize no other mind but their own.

Alterism towards ones own kith and kin does not always extend to other species, we eat dolphins and chimps. The aliens might eat us.

[Jens]

Alterism towards ones own kith and kin does not always extend to other species, we eat dolphins and chimps. The aliens might eat us.

I hope you mean altruism. Alterism sounds like a philosophy that involves changing people as much as you can. :)

[SolusLupus]

I hope you mean altruism. Alterism sounds like a philosophy that involves changing people as much as you can. :)

Huh. That's a pretty awesome philosophy, actually.

[ravens_cry]

Alterism towards ones own kith and kin does not always extend to other species, we eat dolphins and chimps. The aliens might eat us.
Precisely. And why should it? A creature has to eat. That is assuming we are even edible to them, but even that doesn't mean they wouldn't treat us as prey, even if we were not exactly comestibles to them.

[Ilya]

I'm not sure, but I think in primitive human society it was common for men to have sort of separate communities, and that they would tend to go on hunting expeditions while the women and children stayed in an encampment. And boys would be moved from the women community to the men community at some given age. I know that some monkeys have social groups that are like that, with the males living on the outskirts of the core community, which is composed of females and children.
I think you are confusing a few things. There have been warrior societies where unmarried young men (really, teenage boys by our standards) lived separately from women, but this is little different from having a standing army under rules stricter than for the rest of society. Once these men got married, they lived with their wives -- and raised children with their wives.

True gender separation is not unknown in human history (there were tribes in New Guinea where all men and women came together only on special days, and homosexual sex was the norm through most of the year), but those were very unusual exception.

[Jens]

True gender separation is not unknown in human history (there were tribes in New Guinea where all men and women came together only on special days, and homosexual sex was the norm through most of the year), but those were very unusual exception.

That's what I was thinking of, but I didn't know it was unusual. I thought it was more a leftover of earlier societies.

[theNater]

I apologize if most members here want something less speculative and more scientifically established. When it comes to alien life, I find it hard to discuss something that's not speculative. There doesn't seem to be any established scientific data to do anything other than speculate about alien civilizations. Correct me if I'm wrong. To my eyes, the only place we can look to is how human behavior has changed with technology on this topic. Plus I still find speculation interesting and thinking about the possibilities is captivating to me even if there's no evidence for any of it yet.
I think we can look at how human behavior has changed with technology, and even do it semi-scientifically. The approach I would take is to select a certain indicator of unresolved ethical or moral dilemmas(say, a particular crime), and examine how it compares across multiple regions, with an eye to the technological level of the region.

For example, I quickly visited a site called NationMaster.com and looked up some per-capita murder statistics. I assumed that the US, France, the UK, Spain, Hong Kong, and Japan have roughly the same level of technology, and compared their rates. That site gives the following rates(per 1000 people):

US 0.042802
France 0.0173272
UK 0.0140633
Spain 0.0122456
Hong Kong 0.00550804
Japan 0.00499933

This very rudimentary analysis suggests to me that there are more potent factors in the murder rate than technology level, though I can't be confident of that. A more proper analysis would involve finding some way to numerically identify the "technological level" of countries, and see if there's a correlation between that and crime rate for whichever crime you wish to consider.

Fortunately, you've only asked about correlation, which can be demonstrated mathematically. As we all know, causation is a much trickier subject.

[theNater]

If you look back through our history, technological advancement came about largely as a result of conflict.
Geometry
Astronomy
Antibiotics

Those 3 sprang up in like 5 seconds. I'm sure I could think of a lot more.
Geometry is the study of range-finding(triangulation), and is the first stepping-stone to being able to accurately launch long-range projectiles(trajectories) and build defensive structures(material requirements, deflection profiles, etc).

Astronomy is the study of navigation without landmarks, necessary for anyone trying to get a navy to a battle site they can't reach by following a coastline.

Antibiotics keep wounded soldiers alive after battles. It is more efficient to invest in antibiotics than to invest in hiring and training replacement soldiers.

All three of your examples have seen funding and advancement to further military purposes.

I don't claim that they've never seen advancement through non-military means, or even that military-based gains have been more significant than violent setbacks, but the military-based gains do exist.

[Jens]

This very rudimentary analysis suggests to me that there are more potent factors in the murder rate than technology level, though I can't be confident of that.

I think it's a pretty safe conclusion, considering that the US, according to your list, has more than twice the murder rate of its nearest competitor, despite being roughly similar or even higher in terms of technology. I have a feeling I know what the factor is in that case, though it's not the kind of thing we discuss here. There may also be differences in how murder rates are reported.

[baric]

I don't claim that they've never seen advancement through non-military means, or even that military-based gains have been more significant than violent setbacks, but the military-based gains do exist.

So do military-based setbacks?

There are enough non-military benefits of technology to bolster the claim that war is not necessary for technological advancement.


I think it's a pretty safe conclusion, considering that the US, according to your list, has more than twice the murder rate of its nearest competitor, despite being roughly similar or even higher in terms of technology. I have a feeling I know what the factor is in that case, though it's not the kind of thing we discuss here.

I would suspect that it's because we are more heavily armed? I don't think that's a controversial statement.

[swampyankee]

I wonder how many advanced aliens will just think they have solved all their ethical issues. After all, many people didn't consider slavery to be an ethical issue for much of human history. Before you can solve an ethical problem, you have to concede that it exists.

[neilzero]

At some point, threat of extermination makes us better citizens of society, so we likely do not want to reach the level of ethics some people recommend. ie On these forums, if no one told us off when we supposedly erred we would get sloppy in our thinking/Some of us would get sloppy. Neil

[SolusLupus]

I think it's a pretty safe conclusion, considering that the US, according to your list, has more than twice the murder rate of its nearest competitor, despite being roughly similar or even higher in terms of technology. I have a feeling I know what the factor is in that case, though it's not the kind of thing we discuss here. There may also be differences in how murder rates are reported.

I'm curious as to how the murder rates would compare to, say, 1000 years, 500 years, or even 200 years prior. Though for a more comprehensive view, it would be better to look at violent crime in general. I'd also say that the number of people per capita dying of conflict or warfare compared to today would also be relevant to the OP.

Of course, lack of valid statistics available from the past would make it almost impossible to study.

[pzkpfw]

Broad discussion of ethics and morals as they may pertain to unknown alien races is one thing, but everyone should steer well clear of any kind of post that crosses our lines on politics etc, when mentioning anything about our own actual here-on-Earth races.

[Githyanki]

Ethical and or moral dilemmas?

You assume alien intelligence would be the same as human intelligence. Human intelligence is but a type of intelligence unique to our species. Aliens may not have moral or ethical dilemmas.

[Ilya]

Ethical and or moral dilemmas?

You assume alien intelligence would be the same as human intelligence. Human intelligence is but a type of intelligence unique to our species. Aliens may not have moral or ethical dilemmas.
Very good point. The word "dilemma" implies uncertainty about a course of action. A "moral dilemma" is an uncertainty about what course of action is morally appropriate. I can easily imagine a being to whom it is a meaningless concept. It simply does what it does. No dilemmas.

[Romanus]

Ditto posts 69-70.

I don't think it's possible to even frame what ethics would look like to an alien, let alone their solutions. It would be hard to do even on Earth between cultures, and harder still for other species; for example, what might keep a hypothetical intelligent octopus up at night? "Am I vlarpi enough for this skorl? Gnorf suggests vlarpi is hofshtetter, but that cannot be case. Or is it?"

I think all that can be said is that some courses of behavior (ethically-driven or not) are adaptive, and some are maladaptive--but what works for them may not work for us. Case in point: Lemmings are more closely related to us than any ETI, but they're not a species we should be looking toward for lessons on humane population control--even though their behavior must be adaptive, or else it wouldn't have evolved.

[Cougar]

"Ethical rules... were not originally invented by some enlightened human lawgiver. They go deep into our evolutionary past. They were with our ancestral line from a time before we were human." . . . . . . . . Carl Sagan

[Jens]

I think all that can be said is that some courses of behavior (ethically-driven or not) are adaptive, and some are maladaptive--but what works for them may not work for us. Case in point: Lemmings are more closely related to us than any ETI, but they're not a species we should be looking toward for lessons on humane population control--even though their behavior must be adaptive, or else it wouldn't have evolved.

I'm not positive, but I think the idea that lemmings commit suicide is actually a myth. They do migrate, which humans do as well, and certainly humans also perish occasionally when migrating.

[astromark]

This is like asking does a alien have a conchance ?

I am of the view that conchance and ethics and even morality and throw in integrity (and that list could get bigger)... are human constructs.

The word is alien to a alien... I can hardly imagine a alien would think as we do.

I do not expect them to look like us. Why would any part be similar... ethics. No. Lets just shoot them. :eh:heh...

[Ilya]

I'm not positive, but I think the idea that lemmings commit suicide is actually a myth. They do migrate, which humans do as well, and certainly humans also perish occasionally when migrating.
My understanding is that "lemmings commit mass suicide" is a myth with a grain of truth in it -- much like "female spiders and praying mantises eat their mates". When migrating lemmings come to a body of water, they swim. Usually it's a river they can get across, and they do. If they happen to stumble onto ocean or a really wide river, they swim until they tire out and drown. It's just bad luck.

Likewise, female spiders and praying mantises often TRY to eat the smaller males -- and males go to great lengths to avoid it. Sometimes they fail.

[swampyankee]

I think it's pretty obvious that an ETI will have different ethics and morals than do humans (and even human ethics and morals differ from one culture to another and vary over time), so they will have a different set of dilemmas to consider.

Presuming the ETI is composed of more-or-less distinct individuals that are all more-or-less equal in all attributes, I suspect that they will have ethical systems which are identifiable as such to humans. They may also be radically different in expression. As an example, just about every human society has had a concept of "different," and a different set of rules applied to people in the "different" category. We've seen this acted out quite recently, in places like the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

[Jens]

Likewise, female spiders and praying mantises often TRY to eat the smaller males -- and males go to great lengths to avoid it. Sometimes they fail.

Maybe they should try prenuptial agreements.

Actually, not getting anywhere near the females would seem like one possible solution. But I guess they're not willing to go to that length!

[swampyankee]

Maybe they should try prenuptial agreements.

Actually, not getting anywhere near the females would seem like one possible solution. But I guess they're not willing to go to that length!

Maybe some males do have a gene that says "don't go near females; they'll eat you." This gene wouldn't last too long as it would severely limit the number of offspring of a male in which it's expressed.

[Moonhead]

Very good point. The word "dilemma" implies uncertainty about a course of action. A "moral dilemma" is an uncertainty about what course of action is morally appropriate. I can easily imagine a being to whom it is a meaningless concept. It simply does what it does. No dilemmas.

I agree that such a species is at least 'thinkable'*, but If we'd encounter one - beings who do not run into moral dilemmas from time to time - I wonder if we would recognize it as 'sapient'. Would it differ, in this respect, from bees or ants?

[kamaz]

Aliens may not have moral or ethical dilemmas.

A moral dilemma occurs when you have two moral principles that must be followed at the same time, and they both indicate different course of action.

Thus, aliens would not have moral dilemmas if and only if any of the following were true:

1. They did not have any moral principles at all; "do as you will"

2. Their set of core moral principles was completely orthogonal (in a mathematically provable way)

3. They had a fixed system determining how the principles should take priority above each other, regardless of the situation.

[Ilya]

I agree that such a species is at least 'thinkable'*, but If we'd encounter one - beings who do not run into moral dilemmas from time to time - I wonder if we would recognize it as 'sapient'. Would it differ, in this respect, from bees or ants?
I suggest reading "Blindsight" by Peter Watts -- available here for free (http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm). Alien "scramblers" are intelligent, technological, but not self-aware -- and experience no dilemmas. And true, their behavior is closer to bees and ants than to humans.

QUOTE:

Imagine you're a scrambler.

Imagine you have intellect but no insight, agendas but no awareness. Your circuitry hums with strategies for survival and persistence, flexible, intelligent, even technological—but no other circuitry monitors it. You can think of anything, yet are conscious of nothing.

You can't imagine such a being, can you? The term being doesn't even seem to apply, in some fundamental way you can't quite put your finger on.

Try.

Imagine that you encounter a signal. It is structured, and dense with information. It meets all the criteria of an intelligent transmission. Evolution and experience offer a variety of paths to follow, branch-points in the flowcharts that handle such input. Sometimes these signals come from conspecifics who have useful information to share, whose lives you'll defend according to the rules of kin selection. Sometimes they come from competitors or predators or other inimical entities that must be avoided or destroyed; in those cases, the information may prove of significant tactical value. Some signals may even arise from entities which, while not kin, can still serve as allies or symbionts in mutually beneficial pursuits. You can derive appropriate responses for any of these eventualities, and many others.

You decode the signals, and stumble:

I had a great time. I really enjoyed him. Even if he cost twice as much as any other hooker in the dome—

To fully appreciate Kesey's Quartet—

They hate us for our freedom—

Pay attention, now—

Understand.

There are no meaningful translations for these terms. They are needlessly recursive. They contain no usable intelligence, yet they are structured intelligently; there is no chance they could have arisen by chance.

The only explanation is that something has coded nonsense in a way that poses as a useful message; only after wasting time and effort does the deception becomes apparent. The signal functions to consume the resources of a recipient for zero payoff and reduced fitness. The signal is a virus.

Viruses do not arise from kin, symbionts, or other allies.

The signal is an attack.

[Moonhead]

I suggest reading "Blindsight" by Peter Watts -- available here for free (http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm).


Very cool story (although I only 'fast-read' it - out of curiosity, but I already have built up a large 'to read' pile) that addresses many issues and questions that come up when thinking about alien llife, how much it would resemble us and differ with us. Which always involves the question "what are we?"

Personally I like to speculate that the level of individualness in human beings, is some sort of a runaway side-effect of a decentralization of a group mind, in food-gathering cooperation among pre-men. The constituent members of a group (a hominid hunter-gatherer pack in our case) are developing their capabilty of handling more and more complex situations, and need more local processing capacity, at the expense of instinct (a hardwired set of instructions, shared with the group). The loss of instinct on its turn, can be imagined as the cause of the need for a moral system (being a desision tree for situations considered too big to be handled solely on an individual basis).

Which brings us back to the OP... I guess much more advanced aliens might very well face much more advanced ethical and moral dillemma's.

[invisible]

A few decades is nothing and our alleged improvements could be a temporary dip in the longterm. Once we become serious space travellers we will probably see a rise in the use of weapons. Including nuclear and biological WMD. Right now we are just frightened of destroying the planet. It'll pass. All things do.

[Moonhead]

A few decades is nothing and our alleged improvements could be a temporary dip in the longterm. Once we become serious space travellers we will probably see a rise in the use of weapons. Including nuclear and biological WMD. Right now we are just frightened of destroying the planet. It'll pass. All things do.
Indeed, all things do. Including civiliations with the organisational skills, wealth and resources to get to be serious space travellers.

I like your scenario much better.

[Vultur]

I tend to think that most alien species' ethical and moral views won't be very comprehensible to us. A lot would depend on their biological basis though; a species that was, like us, strongly k-selected with long maturation times might have at least some similarity.

I definitely don't think there's likely to be any correlation between technology level and social or moral 'maturity' though. (There needn't be even much of a correlation between technology level and age; humanity spent the first 90% of its existence as hunter gatherers with little advancement -- other species might skip swiftly through their agricultural and industrial revolutions, or never have them at all.)

[Moonhead]

I tend to think that most alien species' ethical and moral views won't be very comprehensible to us. A lot would depend on their biological basis though; a species that was, like us, strongly k-selected with long maturation times might have at least some similarity.

I definitely don't think there's likely to be any correlation between technology level and social or moral 'maturity' though. (There needn't be even much of a correlation between technology level and age; humanity spent the first 90% of its existence as hunter gatherers with little advancement -- other species might skip swiftly through their agricultural and industrial revolutions, or never have them at all.)
I agree, both with your assumption of a biological basis for morality and with the lack of need for a correlation between technology and morality.

But what does "K-selection" mean?

[Ilya]

But what does "K-selection" mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

R-selection: Many offspring, little investment in any individual offspring, small portion survives. Almost all invertebrates, most fish, amphibians, insects.

K-selection: Few offspring, a lot of investment in any individual offspring, large portion survives. Mammals, birds, some fish.

[Ilya]

Somewhat OT: Over last 10 years or so quite a few SF writers picked up on the idea of r-strategy intelligence. Jotoki of "Man-Kzin Wars" are like that, floaters from "Wheelers" by Cohen and Stewart, and two related species (one sentient, the other semisentient) in "Mother of Demons" by Flynn. In each case adults do not really regard newborn offspring as "creatures" - they are more like sperm to them. Only when the offspring are big enough - and natural selection culled their numbers to something manageable, - are they accepted into society.

A twist - both species in "Mother of Demons" feed their "pre-babies"(?) pre-digested pap in the manner of penguins, but they do it unconsciously. An adult would puke up some food and leave, paying no attention to pre-babies gathering to eat, nor to predators gathering to eat them.

[marsbug]

I suggest reading "Blindsight" by Peter Watts -- available here for free (http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm). Alien "scramblers" are intelligent, technological, but not self-aware -- and experience no dilemmas. And true, their behavior is closer to bees and ants than to humans.

QUOTE:

Imagine you're a scrambler.

Imagine you have intellect but no insight, agendas but no awareness. Your circuitry hums with strategies for survival and persistence, flexible, intelligent, even technological—but no other circuitry monitors it. You can think of anything, yet are conscious of nothing.

You can't imagine such a being, can you? The term being doesn't even seem to apply, in some fundamental way you can't quite put your finger on.

Try.

Imagine that you encounter a signal. It is structured, and dense with information. It meets all the criteria of an intelligent transmission. Evolution and experience offer a variety of paths to follow, branch-points in the flowcharts that handle such input. Sometimes these signals come from conspecifics who have useful information to share, whose lives you'll defend according to the rules of kin selection. Sometimes they come from competitors or predators or other inimical entities that must be avoided or destroyed; in those cases, the information may prove of significant tactical value. Some signals may even arise from entities which, while not kin, can still serve as allies or symbionts in mutually beneficial pursuits. You can derive appropriate responses for any of these eventualities, and many others.

You decode the signals, and stumble:

I had a great time. I really enjoyed him. Even if he cost twice as much as any other hooker in the dome—

To fully appreciate Kesey's Quartet—

They hate us for our freedom—

Pay attention, now—

Understand.

There are no meaningful translations for these terms. They are needlessly recursive. They contain no usable intelligence, yet they are structured intelligently; there is no chance they could have arisen by chance.

The only explanation is that something has coded nonsense in a way that poses as a useful message; only after wasting time and effort does the deception becomes apparent. The signal functions to consume the resources of a recipient for zero payoff and reduced fitness. The signal is a virus.

Viruses do not arise from kin, symbionts, or other allies.

The signal is an attack.

Thanks for posting that!

[plant]

What i'd like to know is : do the aliens know that condoms are morally wrong? (would they even fit?)

[MaDeR]

What i'd like to know is : do the aliens know that condoms are morally wrong? (would they even fit?)
First you must ensure that aliens have concept of contraception at all.

[Ilya]

First you must ensure that aliens have concept of contraception at all.
For R-selected aliens, "contraception" may well consist of eating excess young.

[transreality]

Watching the documentary 'The secret lives of dogs' last night'; it suggested that dogs were domesticated by selecting for genes that give non-aggressive behaviour, but that these come in a package of genes that are related to paedomorphy, that make also the animals more sociable and curious, and well as some particular physical attributes. I wonder if humans have also 'domesticated' themselves by this same process, even emphasising the same gene complex. This implies we would have to trade intelligence, and complex sociality against mental maturity. If aliens are in same boat, which may be unlikely, but as a generalisation, this would mean advanced aliens we could expect to have precocious, curious traits that might create a more complex sociality, with consequently even more intractable moral or ethical issues.

[swampyankee]

I don't remember anything in that NOVA about the gene (or gene complex) that reduces aggression necessarily reducing intelligence. Considering that my experience is that the most aggressive humans are not the most intelligent, it's certainly arguable that aggression and intelligence in humans are negatively correlated.

In any case, wolves are quite social animals. They're just not very sociable with humans. ;)

[Mr. Peabody]

What about alien teenagers?
When I was young I used to sneak my mother's keys out of her purse at night and joy ride in her car.
I always pictured alien kids sneaking out at night in their parent's space ships. One of them crashed at Roswell....

[Ilya]

What about alien teenagers?
When I was young I used to sneak my mother's keys out of her purse at night and joy ride in her car.
I always pictured alien kids sneaking out at night in their parent's space ships. One of them crashed at Roswell....
I assume you are joking, but if you are serious, this is parochial in extreme. The concept of "teenager" did not exist before 20th century -- such people were adults, with adult responsibilities and usually married.

[Mr. Peabody]

Yes, I was joking and being simplistic, because if you have to explain a joke it isn't funny.
Most cultures do not have the intermittent "teenage" years as you say but become adults.
Yet as beings mature from infants to adults they pass throught stages of understanding and ethics.
Surely even the most advanced intelligences have their own problems with their offspring.

To answer the initial thread:
Unethical behaviour could be prevented from continueing into the future by eliminating these qualities from the gene pool by:
1: Executing, sterilizing or isolating from sexual contact those who have a propensity for unethical behaviour
2: The intervention of genetic scientists to eliminate these qualities from the gene pool

The further question might be, do all advanced beings completely lose the urge to be dishonest?
We seem to become more ethical as time progresses. Yet even ethical people are forced to tell white lies in given situations, as the lesser of evils. Ethical dillemas might never be eliminated....

[Moonhead]

Ethical dillemas might never be eliminated....
A way to get rid of ethical dilemmas is to get rid of ehtics at all... I haven't decided how likely that is, or even possible.

Maybe for a species where there is no friction between individual ambitions and what is good for the community? And that raises the question (to me at least) whether such a creature would have a personality... Kinda weird, because it seems to imply that personality is connected to ethical dilemmas, and how they are dealt with. Viewed from this perspective, intelligent creatures with a personal identity and sense of "self" can never get beyond good and evil. Nietzsche's Uebermensch has no soul!! :shifty:

[swampyankee]

A way to get rid of ethical dilemmas is to get rid of ehtics at all... I haven't decided how likely that is, or even possible.

Maybe for a species where there is no friction between individual ambitions and what is good for the community? And that raises the question (to me at least) whether such a creature would have a personality... Kinda weird, because it seems to imply that personality is connected to ethical dilemmas, and how they are dealt with. Viewed from this perspective, intelligent creatures with a personal identity and sense of "self" can never get beyond good and evil. Nietzsche's Uebermensch has no soul!! :shifty:

This pretty much parallels my opinion: any intelligent organism (including artificial ones) with social, vs eusocial, organization will always have ethical dilemmas.

[Jens]

I don't remember anything in that NOVA about the gene (or gene complex) that reduces aggression necessarily reducing intelligence. Considering that my experience is that the most aggressive humans are not the most intelligent, it's certainly arguable that aggression and intelligence in humans are negatively correlated.

That just brings up an interesting factoid, or something to think about. It turns out that scientists have discovered a certain genetic trait, and people with that trait commit something like 90% of violent crime, including murder. So you would think that parents might have abortions to get rid of those children. But it turns out just the opposite, that whenever they have the choice, it is generally the children without that trait that are aborted. . . And although I have the trait myself, I have to admit that those without it are generally speaking more intelligent than we are (though I should add that statistics fail to show a difference, so this is somewhat impressionistic).

[Procyan]

Technological advancement creates moral dilemma. So we should expect ET may in fact be a total basket case. Unless they have engaged in a eugenics program and homogenized themselves into a boring mass of ...nambi pambi's.

I am not an ET, but I try to think like one. One possible way forward for them and us would be to build governance controlled by logic and reason...I mean computers. Imagine a digital democracy where everyone has their say directly to a machine. The machine whirrs and ...buzz, clic..."build more hydroelectric...invest 5% of GDP in alt energy...ban reality tv". See how logical life would be?

And keep them digital. Why? Wet brains are analog. So I reason that thoughtful, self-interested (and therefore dangerous) machines will not awaken until they become analog too. By keeping the machines digital they remain forever ..."altruistic" and able to govern and guide without passion.

[baric]

Technology brings great power. And with great power comes great responsibility... or extinction. See my sig for more details.