Banned
How might aliens take over our planet? If I was leading a battle fleet I'd study humanity. Then buy the planet. Hire a few human agents. Mine the asteroid belt and then sell us enough Gold, Platinum, Beryllium and other exotic shiny beads to buy up all the real estate on offer. They wouldn't need to enslave us. We've already got a minimum wage slave work force system in place. It would simply be a change in management. Nobody would even notice.
Established Member
Why bother with Earth? Plenty of resources throughout our solar system. Not like we could do anything to stop them if we were so inclined. I can't see a scenario where aliens would need an economic boost selling us refined metals or other resources from our own solar system. If they needed our resources badly enough to come here, they'd probably keep them for themselves.
Senior Member
Why bother with our solar system? There is nothing here that can't be found in any other solar system.Originally Posted by redshifter
Well, excluding us.
Newbie
If I were an alien, I would need to decide on the climate and what species are ok to live with. If only a human is the problem than just design a virus to wipe most of people from earth - this would be the most efficient way without disturbing much the rest of the ecosystem.
If one does not care about the species than some 15-km asteroid would be enough to erase some 70% of Earth population. The rest of population can be erased by viruses and toxins against the remaining species including humans and plants.
And I do not think any alien would need to enslave a stupid human for work, which could be perfectly completed by a clever robot.
Order of Kilopi
If by "us", you refer to Earthlings in general, of course.Why bother with our solar system? There is nothing here that can't be found in any other solar system.
Well, excluding us.
Still...I wouldn't be too quick to presume there isn't something else unusual out there in our solar system.
Established Member
I can't see any scenario where aliens would have any reason to come to Earth other than to simply meet and study us. There's plenty of everything that is on Earth all through the universe... except for the life. If they have the technology to get here then they have no needs that we or our planet could fulfill for them other than adding to their own knowledge.
Stephen Hawking and a few others say that we should try to keep a low profile, but I don't think their fears have much basis in reality. If our hypothetical alien neighbors have managed to make it this far then I can't think of any good reason that they would have to destroy us. It would be a lot easier to mine the big giant clouds of water in space than it would be trying to do it here with pesky humans trying to kill you.
Established Member
Indeed. I think a lot of humans would rather die than be enslaved by aliens. And then there is the matter of providing us with food, shelter, healthcare, and everything else we would need to survive and be good slaves. It would just be a waste of time and resources on the part of the aliens.
Order of Kilopi
And even if, for some incomprehensible alien reason, ETs did decide to "invade" us, there are far too many variables to say what scenarios are likely or even plausible. How do they think? What are their goals? What technology do they have? How much warning do we get before they arrive? Will they come in person, or send machines?
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Established Member
Nuke the entire site from orbit. If these homocidal aliens are really bent on destroying us, there's no need to soft-pedal it.
Senior Member
Why not?
Order of Kilopi
Well, Earth itself has a thick atmosphere and deep gravity well. I can't think of many natural resources that couldn't be gotten cheaper from asteroids and comets.
Now, if they appreciate cultural artefacts, art and technology, they might come to Earth, but you don't invade for such things.
A semi-plausible reason for an Earth invasion, as opposed to strip mining the solar system, might be some religious indignation.
Perhaps some habit of ours that our broadcasts have shown offend some deeply felt taboo.
Order of Kilopi
There's no evidence of any.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Order of Kilopi
That'd take a heck of a lot of nukes, more than even we have, and they'd have to bring them with them or make them here on site.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
If we want to look at this realistically for a moment and not attribute to aliens, sufficiently-advanced magical god-hood levels of technology, then we can make some educated guesses. Better yet, imagine how it might work if we were attempting to colonize another planet.
Without FTL, we can assume they would travel here on a slow boat using non-magical tech. This means there are severe mass constraints on payload and passengers. Due to the actual limitations of detection, they may not know we were here until after they left because we weren't radiating yet or, they didn't detect us until they got close because our radio strength decreases to insignificance not too far out. So, they won't have the technological ability to just take anything from just anywhere in the solar system and maybe their supply situation was based on adapting a habitable planet with small structures or modest paraterraforming. In addition to this, they may not have the numbers in population or weapons tech to make war and survive. They would have to either avoid us and bypass the planet, or if they didn't have the fuel/propellant, they might just hang around in secret hoping to scrounge what they need without anyone noticing.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Established Member
Well that would be the end of this thread …
… QED ...
Cheers
Order of Kilopi
Because of how little we know of other planetary systems, and because exoplanet systems have so far surprised us by being more different from ours than we had expected. Our solar system doesn't even have any examples of mini-neptunes, which seem to be the most common type.
Also, we know precious little about the vast majority of our solar system's bodies. Consider, for example, how little we know of the Pluto system. The Oort cloud and any planets among them is quite mysterious.
Among our solar system's significantly sized bodies are some really odd mysterious outliers. Titan and its unique atmosphere is unusual (for us, at least). 90377 Sedna is another enigmatic mystery.
So, we have a severe lack of information as well as a historical trend of finding out our solar system isn't as typical as we had thought. Given all that, I wouldn't assume that the only possible thing interesting about our solar system is the life here on Earth.
Established Member
Well, given that we know so little, why assume anything at all ?
The only real fact is that life elsewhere, is 'unknown'.
Assuming anything, one way or the other, biases the search criteria, and minimises any chances of finding anything (if there is anything to find). Overall, its just poor scientific practice if you ask me.
Senior Member
Sorry for the "snip job", I just wanted to illustrate that you, yourself admit that we just don't have the information...certainly not enough information to speculate that our solar system has "something" that other solar systems do not.
Last edited by R.A.F.; 2012-Jul-14 at 12:53 AM. Reason: added "enough"
Established Member
Please don't take this the wrong way, because I mean no disrespect. In fact, I admire your rigor, selfsim. But no one is saying that Sasquatch is real or that they saw Nessie in the loch. All they are saying is that you shouldn't assume that life does not exist elsewhere.
I agree with you in principle. We do only have one sample to work with. But that doesn't mean we can't use it to make predictions. A lot of our earlier knowledge about other stars came from observing the only one close to us. We have to work with what we know. No scientist does an experiment before they have some sort of hypothesis or idea of what they are looking for. That's why we don't accept results until we know they have been reviewed and reproduced. That's to eliminate bias. But being human, our first experiment or observation is always going to be biased. Again, that's why we insist that third parties confirm all results. We would be remiss if we did not. But we can't look if we don't have any idea what we are looking for to begin with. We need some kind of starting point. That's why we don't just assume no other life exists. If we did that, there would be no reason to look.
Again, please don't take this the wrong way. I am merely making an observation.
Senior Member
Of course not....that would require evidence to confirm the claim.
Why is it that Nessie and Sasquatch require evidence before belief, yet a much more important question...if life exists elsewhere in the universe, is "given a pass"...is "assumed" to be correct?All they are saying is that you shouldn't assume that life does not exist elsewhere.
Established Member
Why not assume that ?
It seems completely appropriate to do so … particularly if we simultaneously assume that life exists elsewhere, (and I see an abundance of that .. right here !)
The impression commonly being attempted in this section of the forum, is one based on logical reasoning. Just about all scientific theories use abductive and inductive logical reasoning. A theory is constructed on observation or experiment (abductive reasoning). The same theory can be used to make predictions, (inductive reasoning). Mathematical theorems on the other hand, are based on deductive (affirmative) reasoning however, mathematicians occasionally attempt to disprove the premise, even though the initial premise is assumed to be true. If the premise is found to be not true, then a "proof by contradiction" is obtained. This almost never happens in philosophically based logical reasoning .. and the exo-life 'exists' camp, almost never attempts anything similar to that.
Frankly I see the discussion of exolife, not falling in any category of reasoning (deductive, inductive or abductive). The problem is there is no data that forms a conclusion or allows the construction of a premise. The lack of data cannot in itself be considered as a valid basis for formulation of the premise that exo-life doesn't exist either, as this leads to the logical fallacy of 'argumentum ad ignorantium'.
Unfortunately, the only way one can make meaningful predictions, is if there is an empirical, data-based theory, which then enables the generalisation of such a theory, to apply to 'universally applicable life'. In the process of abstracting to such a generalised level of theory, our best mathematically based tools have shown that the cost of doing this, is predictability itself. (This is just like quantum mechanics .. the observation itself, is perfectly capable of obliterating what you set out to observe in the first place !)
Working with what we know, also requires having remain aware that it is, by necessity, completely biased towards 'Earth-like'. There is no escape from this, except if one chooses to become completely oblivious about that (which seems to be the case here).Show me where a testable hypothesis has been clearly stated here.
The only way bias can be eliminated is via a second instance being discovered. This has nothing to do with peer review, although I would expect that such a discovery would be reviewed, in order to eliminate author bias.
Why not ?Sure there would … open-minded exploration requires nothing more than curiosity.
No problems … I appreciate the opportunity to elaborate on what seems to be lacking here.
Regards
Senior Member
Precisely...it's not, "gee, I'll assume there is life elsewhere, so I'll look for it", but actually, "I don't know what is out there...there may be life, so I'll look for it".
The difference might seem subtle, but there is a difference.
Established Member
The difference is honesty ...!!...
Senior Member
I'm not prepared to make such a judgement "call".
It is as you posted...there is no need to rely on assumption as the "impetus" for seeking other life...you only need to be curious.
Established Member
Yep .. fair enough.
'Scientific honesty' is more what I meant … (not the morality call).
Cheers
Order of Kilopi
I'm not the one assuming. Some others assume that the only possible thing in our solar system which isn't commonplace is the life forms here on Earth.
Banned
All the evidence I've seen points to life being nothing more than an inevitable chemical processgiven time and the right environmental conditions. Life by its very nature expands and grows into new environments. Intelligence has survival value. We humans have spread to every continent and are endeavouring to reach out into space. Why assume this is only happening on one speck of rock in the Galaxy?
Ants use slaves. Humans use slaves. Why wouldn't creatures more advanced than us decide to enslave us? Robots are expensive and limited in scope here. Maybe they will surpass our capabilities one day and maybe not. There are inventions we have never conceptualised. Some aliens may not have considered building robots.
Order of Kilopi
Umm...YOU are the one presuming certainty about whether or not there could possibly be anything interesting in our solar system other than the life forms here on Earth. YOU are the one claiming absolute certainty.
Anyway, your position seems oddly inconsistent, since you make an exception for "us". You have no problem with speculating that the life forms here on Earth might be something that other solar systems do not have. Why make such a glaring exception?
Order of Kilopi
Evidence, perhaps?
We know we're here. We've found no signs of anything similar anywhere else.
Added: Even if there is life out there, it won't be like Earth's life; and if it is like us, that's reason alone to make the trip!
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Order of Kilopi
I don't think that's accurate. More properly the little evidence we have and the lack of same gives us the null hypothesis that it was just a "an inevitable chemical process" and the Copernican Principle allows us to contextualize "the right environmental conditions" as being rather common. Thing is, we don't know the cause nor the environmental conditions at the time and location of the cause.
Assuming we have compatible biology... which may not be a safe assumption.Ants use slaves. Humans use slaves. Why wouldn't creatures more advanced than us decide to enslave us? Robots are expensive and limited in scope here. Maybe they will surpass our capabilities one day and maybe not. There are inventions we have never conceptualised. Some aliens may not have considered building robots.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote