Hawking Warns Humanity to Avoid Dangerous Aliens

[RelexCryo]

I said what Hawking said myself: there is no reason to assume aliens would be psychologically different from us. The same basic principles of evolution would exist on their planet. Different chemicals, sure, but the same basic principles of evolution.

 

[ninjajoeman]

this is how I see it

"Mr. president the Aliens seem hostile."
"MR. president?!"


"arm da nooks..."

Aliens = Christopher Columbus? Hell, we'd be lucky if that were true. Anything smart enough to transverse the distances of space will likely consider us hardly more intelligent than chimps. And when's the last time we ever had a really nice sit down and chat with a bunch of chimps? Human head ashtrays, anyone? We'd have better luck if Skynet popped out of the Internet. At least all it has are NUKES.

It's why these ancient alien technology people make me livid. How can they possibly think that a space-faring culture would arrive on a planet teeming with resources and then think, "Hey! These flesh-bags are pretty cute. Let's teach them how to build pyramids - one of the simplest architectural structure imaginable. Won't /that/ screw with their little heads?" It'd be like a bunch of drunken frat boys landing a helicopter in the Amazon jungle and teaching parrots how to build a tee-pee.

on that last part, I'd do it

 

[zehydra]

Damn. I already opened up a coffee shop for them and everything.

 

[Always_Remain]

Sort of agree with him hehe.
Imagine if massive aliens that could float through space came and ate earth up in a second as if it was a snack?

MAYBE REAPERS

OH SOME QUARIANS. DEM HIIIIIIIIIPS IS THA PRIZE. /reference

Kill me now.

 

[ultrachicken]

On Earth, the public opinion about killing animals is that it's wrong.
An advanced alien species would probably see us as animals, and it's possible that public opinion would be similar.

Of course, I agree with Hawking, it's a little too risky.

 

[Treblaine]

I have a sneaking suspicion that you can't even "BEGIN" to explain because you don't know yourself and are just pulling shit out of your ass.



And you know this how? What if they are not carbon based lifeforms? Given that vastness of the universe that is an easy possibility
.

Don't try to pretend you are the only one who payed attention in science class. Acting like an elitist prick does not impress me when I am fully aware of basic chemistry.


There are a wide array of complex molecules without any oxygen in them whatsoever. You could say "It can make life because it can combine with other stuff" about any gaseous element. And this is all chemistry in a lab. Lets try it all with the hundreds of millions of variables the chemistry that created life on earth combined with all the hundreds of millions of variables that could be just a little different on some other world that is habitable in a different way.



And what if they are not carbon based lifeforms? Then what? Why must their very base system of existence be the same as ours?


Air is almost 80% Nitrogen and we can breath pure oxygen. What makes you so sure they are going to need oxygen? (If you haven't noticed I am kinda big on the "Lets not assume they aren't almost exactly like us" thing. Gene Rodenbury's conception of intelligent life in the universe can go fuck itself)


And if Nitrogen just happens to be highly toxic to them? what then? Thank you for shooting your own argument in the foot. Let me remind you that nearly 80% of the atmosphere is nitrogen. If that much of some planet we intended on terraforming was 80% carbon monoxide we would say "Fuck that shit" and move on. They might depend on nitrogen much like we depend on oxygen but we don't know that for sure. This whole argument is a moot point seeing as how every radio broadcast gets sent out in all directions at the speed of light anyway so the only way to stop broadcasting to ET would be to stop using technology that communicates with electromagnetic radiation.


Now to show you that "Hey maybe there are space aliens out thar!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal

Read THIS before you move on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking

Seriously, it is very poor form to just go point by point through people's response, it shows you are less interested in coming to compromise and more interested in simply to opposing each and every point I make simply because I made those points.

Oh yeah, and most likely any alien species WILL be carbon based because only carbon is an abundant element in the universe which can easily form long flexible chains. Silicon, to spite only one step down in the periodic table simply cannot do that, no element is as flexible, modifiable and of as high performance as Carbon.

Consider this, carbon can easily flow in and out of an organism as carbon-dioxide, but silicon-dioxide is sand, very hard to deal with. In the very earliest self replicating quasi-life-forms having CO2 easily defuse away will give THAT variety of life an "advantage".

See even in COMPLETELY synthetic materials carbon is the element of choice, carbon is the basis of most nano-technology from carbon nano-tubes to more complex "electron plumbing" nano-structures. Trust me man, carbon is not GUARANTEED to be the basis of alien life... just a very high probability.

It just should be noted that no other life or self-replicating chemical reaction has shown to even be possible without carbon's unique ability to form long, flexible chains that are surrounded with reactive groups.

Put it this way, if you can show me another element other than carbon that can form:
-long chains
-flexible chains
-with reactive groups along the length of said chains
-can react with a common element that has a gaseous stage to form a gas (also reversible reaction)
-that these chains can exist in both hydrophobic and hydrophilic forms
-and list some of the other useful compounds this element can form.
-has bond-enthalpy similar to carbon-carbon bonds

Then that has potential as being the basis of the organic matter of alien life forms but none of the common elements that make up the universe are capable of that.

Nitrogen is unlikely to be "toxic" as in the sense it will react violently with alien chemistry because at the temperature of our atmosphere Nitrogen is so non-reactive to the point where it is practically inert. Only in extremely hot environments (like the centre of a super-hot explosion) will Nitrogen react without catalyst.

I assume you are familiar with the Haber Process, it is very difficult to get diatomic-nitrogen to react with anything, so any interaction with alien metabolism will be as in inert reagent, such as interfering with enzyme-receptors or equivalent chemical receptors.

But that may only require a few genetic modifications to fix those few genes that make susceptible enzymes, it is just a matter of dumb-luck because the aliens may not have been exposed to nitrogen in large concentrations on their planet.

I find it poignant that you bring up Gene Roddenberry (god I love classic Star Trek) as he was very open minded to possibilities of alien life but his lack of a background in biochemistry did not help him. I studied Biochemistry for 2 years (I have now switched for a degree in Diagnostic Radiography) and the "alien life form" perspective came up a lot as often the issue of what was even possible for life to do was addressed.

One possibility is that alien life may have a normal body temperature of 80 to 90 degrees Celsius, I don't know what that is in Fahrenheit but it's almost the boiling point of water, but at the very least it has been proven that metabolism of highly active cells is possible at that temperature as with the examples of extremeo-phile bacteria and archaea.

The thing is it is not adequately scientific to say "Aliens could have ANY metabolism, we MUST account for all possibilities" but that fails to consider what we already KNOW about biochemistry that we don't just have to consider possibilities but probabilities, and probably, they will want most of the same basic (very basic) things as us.

There are some other things to expect;

-they will be land-based: may ver ywell have a water stage in their life cycle but cannot do very well with a 100% life cycle simply because you can't start fires or melt/shape metal underwater, and whichever species learns to shape/form metal first will have an incredible advantage and be very useful in eventually making spaceships and various space exploration machines.

-huge variance in normal temperature, pressure requirements compared to us: the size and gravitation of alien planets varies hugely, they could very easily live on a planet with huge gravity and a "sea level" pressure 10 times what exists on earth. But humans can function well enough at very much lower (or higher) air pressure as long as the partial pressures of essential gasses are adjusted.


Bottom line, I am arguing from the position of someone half way through higher education on bio-chemical and medical science, but I can only say so much.

I suggest if you have any more questions don't ask me, ask a scientist who specialises in the subject of the evolution of life. I would at the very least defer to the learned opinion of great scientist like Hawking and I would not feel comfortable contradicting him without an INCREDIBLY good understanding of the same subject (I'm talking, have a doctorate degree good). I am just repeating what I have learned that happens to corroborate Hawking's conclusion... that aliens would be very (too) interested in Earth's vital life resources.

 

[Treblaine]

On Earth, the public opinion about killing animals is that it's wrong.
An advanced alien species would probably see us as animals, and it's possible that public opinion would be similar.

Of course, I agree with Hawking, it's a little too risky.

Which public? are you referring to the "pubic" as in white western Europeans or North Americans?

Hell, it's mainly city dweller that oppose killing animals since the only animals they ever meet at those that are kept as pets by humans.

But even these City Slicker aren't that opposed to killing animals considering the VAST quantities of meat, and other animal products (leather, crocodile skin handbags?) that are bought shows they may not like to see it but they are happy to be complicit in it, pay for it and benefit from it. Vegan food stores are a minority of food sales even in major cities.

And even a 100% vegan diet requires animals must die, the function of any farm requires a year found job of shooting, gassing, poisoning of pest and basically any animal that tries to eat the succulent, high yield crops.

No the only truly non-harmful diet is to live in the forest foraging for wild berries and NEVER resorting to intensive farming.

because if you plant a field of corn and aren't prepared to defend it from hungry herbivores then you will literally have nothign left.

And you are not going to scare away a wild pig by waving your hands or making loud noises, they will attack YOU if you get in between them and their next meal, even if the meal is crops that you have meticulously grown yourself. You have to get a weapon and kill it.

 

[oktalist]

To any aliens out there with a radio telescope, we're already lit up like a Christmas tree. Nuclear weapons tests, microwave communications, gigawatt power grids, these things churn out electromagnetic radiation and other detectable emissions like nobody's business, so a few bored scientists with a Radio Shack transmitter beaming out pictures of naked people and prime number sequences are not exactly worsening the situation by very much at all.

 

[Retardinator]

Chances are that with such technology aliens wouldn't have trouble finding other resourceful planets. I mean, there's a whole universe out there. Surely if they're that advanced they wouldn't stomp on a developing civilization, they'd probably know better. Then again, even smart people can be dicks.

 

[sukotsuto]

Doesn't matter if they find us. They better be careful if we find them. Our good ol' guns would fare better than whatever fancy rayguns and laser pistols they have in their planet. And if you want to know how real guns work in space, no fret: they actually work better as they are being propelled at greater ranges than normal due to lack of air resistance.

They planning to bring the mothership down to wreak havoc? Cruise missiles lol. WHO'S INVADING WHO NOW, BITCHES! Give me your technology so that we can proceed to colonize your alien world.


Well... assuming extraterrestrial life are advanced enough to know space flight. They might still be using swords and spears in their home planet... or the only life outside of Earth are microorganisms.


I have a feeling Hawking just watched District 9.

 

[sukotsuto]

Extraterrestrial life forms may be incomprehensible to us anyway, just like it's depicted in Stanislaw Lem's novel and 1970s Tarkovsky movie "Solyaris" (no not "Solaris" starring George Clooney. That newer 2002 American remake was shit in pure form. I actually watched that before the 1970 Tarkovsky movie, and I actually preferred to old movie 110% of the time).

It's possible that they can't conquer us just as much as we can't conquer them due to being unable to understand their nature.

 

[sukotsuto]

Doesn't matter if they find us. They better be careful if we find them. Our good ol' guns would fare better than whatever fancy rayguns and laser pistols they have in their planet. And if you want to know how real guns work in space, no fret: they actually work better as they are being propelled at greater ranges than normal due to lack of air resistance.

They planning to bring the mothership down to wreak havoc? Cruise missiles lol. WHO'S INVADING WHO NOW, BITCHES! Give me your technology so that we can proceed to colonize your alien world.


Well... assuming extraterrestrial life are advanced enough to know space flight. They might still be using swords and spears in their home planet... or the only life outside of Earth are microorganisms.


I have a feeling Hawking just watched District 9.

um...how would a gun work better in space if there is no oxygen to create the tiny explosion that propels the bullet? And why would we be shooting at them in space...with guns?
Are we now on some kind of "wild wild west" in space scenario now?

You can see some of science forums discussing this. There's no need for an external source of oxygen, as guns had always had oxidizers built in, which is enough to propel the bullet even in places that lack oxygen.

Source:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=471

Laser pistols, on the other hand, wouldn't be as cost-effective or effective. Assuming they make a laser pistol or ray gun that actually works, the cost of building one would be the same cost of arming a whole company (or battalion) with assault rifles. And it wouldn't be as good as an assault rifle anyway

 

[kurupt87]

It'd depend on whether the aliens have ftl travel or not. If they do, then they are more likely to be open to friendliness. If they don't have ftl, then we are much more likely to meet a desperate and hostile species.

The fact that ftl travel is impossible as we understand things is underwhelming in this case.

 

[sukotsuto]

Speaking of microwave technology, you can actually throw off some emission seeking missiles using open regular household microwave ovens pointing upwards lol:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BOG211A.html

Maybe something as simple as that can beat off an alien invasion

 

[veloper]

how far do our broadcasts reach into space?

It would suck to have only wired communication.

 

[Treblaine]

Your talking about biology we learned from life on earth. You really need to open your mind if you want to talk about life somewhere else in the universe.
No offense but your just repeating what you read in several science books, good books but most of it will probably look like barbaric superstition 1000 years from now. Just look at what they "knew" hundreds of years ago, nobody ever made new discoveries by assuming we know everything already.

Oh... Seriously?!?

I mean that, are you actually being serious? Tell me you are being sarcastic or just trying to be funny.

The shit that you say we "knew" 100 years ago that is discredited now was MADE UP! Loads of stuff pre-Renaissance, especially to do with chemistry (alchemy) was NOT SCIENCE.

But the Actual Science from almost half a millennium ago stands just as true today as it did then. Isaac Newton's equations were almost all the physics that was used to chart the trajectory of the rocketry in the Apollo space program to put humans on The Moon!

And Einstein's Theories did not disprove Newtonian physics, only added to them.

"nobody ever made new discoveries by assuming we know everything already."

No one is claiming we know everything, you seem to be implying that since in 1000 years all modern science will be seen as "barbaric superstition" that would should act as if we don't know ANYTHING!

I'm just stating what we DO know.