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".