4 hostile alien civilizations may lurk in the Milky Way, a new study suggests

[Admin]

New research calculates the odds that humans will contact a 'malicious' alien civilization that wants to invade our planet. Don't worry, the chances are incredibly small.

4 hostile alien civilizations may lurk in the Milky Way, a new study suggests : Read more

 

[Unclear Engineer]

While, as a risk analyst, I can appreciate the effort to quantify this risk level, I think it is worth reflecting on how the author has chosen to estimate the probability of an alien technological species treating us badly if they do come here.

The author chose to look only at how humans have treated other humans over the last century.

But, would it be better to have looked at how we have treated other species here on Earth during that period? While we have (arguably) begun to behave better towards each other, we have been annihilating other species at an alarming rate.

So, if we were to ever get to another planet that we want to think of as Earth 2.0, let's assume that it is wet and mild, so other "extraterrestrial life" is already there. How would we treat that? Here on earth, we eat most things that don't seem to have a social structure that we can relate to as hunter gatherers. And we are not very nice to living things more like us, such as monkeys and chimpanzees, using them for deadly scientific experiments, etc. Because they are not "technological", we treat them as "less-than" human. So, on anther world, what animals would we eat, what animals would we push to extinction, and what animals would we use for experimentation?

Now, reversing the roles, if an extraterrestrial life form has the technological capabilities to come here, what do you think they would believe about the value of us to them? At best, we would probably be the equivalent of monkeys, with only minimal development of "tools" and intraspecies ethics, in comparison to what that other species must have developed to even get here.

So, let's hope that ethics progresses along with technology as a general rule for intelligent life.

 

[Catastrophe]

I think it not inappropriate to offer this link again in an even more appropriate context:

Estimating the prevalence of malicious extraterrestrial civilization

2205.11618.pdf (arxiv.org)

Cat

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I did a little more fantasizing about species capable of interplanetary travel who do not resemble us at all.

For example, consider a plant-type being, that gets its energy directly from the light of stars and does not need biological "food" - it just needs chemical nutrients that could be inorganic or recycled organic. And, plants can develop from seeds - a good form for "stasis" during interplanetary travel that might take decades, centuries, even millennia. So, if a specie of plant became mobile and technological, it might be able to devise interplanetary vehicles that they could launch toward promising looking stars with seeds aboard, and a star ("solar") powered artificial intelligence system onboard that would be awakened by the light as it approaches our star, water the seeds and shine the amount on light on them needed to mature, and then teach (download) into the mature plants the history and culture of their species plus directions for the mission they are on as it approaches Earth, initially guided by the AI system to bring it into an orbit, here.

What would those intelligent plants think about all of us animals on Earth? We are all basing our entire existence on our ability to leach off the local plant's biological ability to directly use light energy. Even the vegans among us would look like mortal enemies to intelligent plants. We would be vermin to them! How could we even justify our existence, since it is completely dependent on eating their kind?

 

[Catastrophe]

Yes. Imagine their reaction to see us cutting down the Amazon forest.

Cat

 

[Zephaniah Chesterfield]

I skimmed the comments and will go back and fully soak it in, but yeah, it comes down to the mindset of that invading type of being.

MINDSET is the key word. Mindset is rooted in consciousness which is rooted in a self and a perception or understanding to the point of knowing (and vice versa) of that self as having a weakness which threatens it's continuance. For instance, to be aware that self needs to eat to live, not eating would threaten self's continuance, and so self needs to find food. If self ate all of the food on self's area of habitation, then self's environment is now the threat. (Not really, the actual threat is self's dependence on food). So self leaves that environment in search of one that is favorable, and understand "No one or thing does ANYTHING unless they gain from it" (paraphrasing myself from a book i started writing) and the thing that is the ideal objective in gaining is "expression/experience (understanding to the point of knowing) of a pure/divine way of being of self. Me at my best is why any and everything is done that is done. If it doesn't offer that, it doesn't get done. Telling someone to "shut up" vs "please be quiet" isn't about them being quiet, it's the delivery that offers the person saying it the experience of their most ideal self.

Back to the "aliens" (because we're the aliens to Martians) ....THAT Being (everything is BEING BEing Being(s)), no matter what form, would have to have a level of consciousness, and in that, an awareness of self to understand to the point of knowing (and knowing to the point of understanding) that we are a threat to it's continuance as it's ideal self. If it's galaxies away.... WHAT DOES IT KNOW ABOUT US... THAT IS THAT GREAT OF A THREAT.... that we do not know about ourselves? It cuts one of two ways, either we have the power it fears, or we have the treasure it's lacking and needs.

THAT is my question. In all of that other being's advancement and mental or/and spiritual or/and technological "superiority", it still views us as the threat. Now if we're the weaker species, then it coming here shows us the power we have over it. It's reason is the thing it's lacking, hence our leverage and how we destroy it... however, it still ended up here, facing us... so what does that say about us that we're not saying about ourselves.

..............to that, I'll add... looking at our destructive nature, inherited from the gods, if they came here, what gods image were THEY made in? hahahahahahaa. Try not to take that last bit as religious. Spirituality has to do with B-US-IN-ESS(ence)... Being us in essence, which is business- the manipulation of the flow/direction/employment and expression of energy; the manipulation and use of currency. Thoughts are as much currency as blood or electricity. Spirit is nothing more than a central or common focal point, a rooting place for an energy or way of being (happiness is a spirit because it's the "point of reference" for all expressions or all of the flow of energies of that vibration). Spirits or points are made into "gods" which are mindsets, points.... so long story short, what mindset created that expression of them that understands some weakness where we are the focal point that needs to be addressed for a resolution to the illusion of their problem?

 

[Zephaniah Chesterfield]

........... Earth 2.0, let's assume that it is wet and mild, so other "extraterrestrial life" is already there. How would we treat that? Here on earth, we eat most things that don't seem to have a social structure that we can relate to as hunter gatherers. And we are not very nice to living things more like us, such as monkeys and chimpanzees, using them for deadly scientific experiments, etc. Because they are not "technological", we treat them as "less-than" human. So, on anther world, what animals would we eat, what animals would we push to extinction, and what animals would we use for experimentation?

Now, reversing the roles, if an extraterrestrial life form has the technological capabilities to come here, what do you think they would believe about the value of us to them?

Mindsets. Taking from what you said about how "we eat most things that don't seem to have a social structure that we can relate to..." (the "as hunter gatherers" i can understand as one shade of a bit of an indescribable color or mindset). It comes down to that mindset. Not making it "religious" but definitely adding a spiritual point to question and consider... which also overlaps a scientific presence which that overlapping of the two points of mind and being (science and spirituality) is becoming so blurred that it's becoming one focused point.... WHY is always the question (and yeah, this is coming off as kinda "rambly" but... uno momento porfa)...

Dig it... the social structure we understand is that of being superior, and in that, an exclusive entitlement to survival because of a spiritual sense of being in and of a dominant and even all powerful way of being. Spiritually we call it the human spirit, religiously it's called God, Scientifically it's called intellect and adaptability. All of them point to the same thing... we think to the point of believing one thing we understand of ourselves, which is that we are capable of adapting and in that ensuring our survival by subjugating anything AND EVERYTHING in our path, and if not, then annihilation is the answer. However, all thought is not limited to brains which are a physical tool of minds, and the points of reference and currency for minds (the thoughts) exist in a free space, which is how thoughts "come to you"... it's a vibrational pairing, magnetism... and us having minds is no different than any other being. It's our expression of that sense of entitlement and our arrogance that is our liberation and power (and/or the illusion) as well a tool for any other being of the same mindset to do as we will with it. Basically, thoughts float in a free space. If your mind is on the same frequency then all thoughts in that spectrum are accessible and the more you focus on one point (like writing a sentence and adding specific words to paint a specific picture) the more you draw and the clearer you see one point. If dominance is that point, the one single word is dominance. Doesn't matter what species you are, if that's the word and thought then that's it. It's not limited to us. We just think we're the only ones who think it because we're the only ones who express it how we all understand because we all have the same "man" mind. Viruses can wipe us out, which is the same expression of dominance expressed in the way viruses know to express it, but we're not viruses so we don't see it that way. To us, any other dominance is called "a challenge" or "a threat". Mainly because of that mental, spiritual, religious, and scientific ideal that we alone possess this "god" thing (god particle, highest self, soul, natural selection, divine right, evolution, yadda yadda yadda)... through the years it's been molded to fit whatever the opposing thought or subject is, but basically, "Man is here to rule and has dominance" is the thought. It's a horrible misconception, one that we are also not the only ones free to stumble upon. That invading "alien" force is no different than us in that way. It would be an interesting clash. A partnering would be just as chaotic but interesting. I would say that in that light/right they resemble us exactly. Even if they're floating goo beings who communicate telepathically or if they're robots who've achieved the most "human" and godlike level of singularity.... we're all the exact same monster, the same one that invented and gave us the ability to revel in their fallen concept.

 

[Catastrophe]

Did anyone actually get around to looking at this?

2205.11618.pdf (arxiv.org)

Cat

 

[Zephaniah Chesterfield]

Did anyone actually get around to looking at this?

2205.11618.pdf (arxiv.org)

Cat

I was skimming it. I'll dig into it in a sec. I was wasting consciousness at "the job." On the first skim thru what i gathered was that we're gonna pump some dubstep with subliminal codes into space... if it reaches some being that gets the message, not just receives it, but actually gets it, then there's some math about how likely they are to be just as insane as we are and then if they'll come and try to get an actual answer to that question. Again, first skim while distracted at "the job" and I'll sink into it a bit more in a sec. Currently watching reviews on the Burris Eliminator IV.

 

[Zephaniah Chesterfield]

Ah, so.... (chuckling, not because I'm a clown)... basically there's more of a probability of an actual undeveloped planet (the rock, physical mass) coming to kill us than the developed inhabitants of a planet (beings on a rock) coming to kill us. One of the reasons for the chuckle is a... hmm... not sure what is word(s)... psychotic twist(?) on the whole idea is that whole multiverse of marbles in the bag of a giant being kind of concept... which the thought giving me the giggles is just goes crazier if allowed to be entertained...

So, there's planets. On these planets beings exist. Some of those beings become conscious and begin to further develop. THAT PART i would say makes sense in diving into when dealing with the issue of one way of conscious being interacting with another by way of technological advancement. How natural is technological advancement? Seeing how most of the other inhabitants of this planet have evolved to a level where they're in balance with everything (but us) and they don't really go beyond that balance, then how natural is our advancement? I can entertain the thought that it is somewhat instinctual... as eccentric as it may be... the tools came about as a means of survival, but how natural is wanting complete dominance? If you're unbalanced and developing beyond the natural balance, then you'll develop much faster as you have to take larger and more drastic leaps to try to rebalance, which isn't a true balance, it's just to make everything fit your will. So, if there is any manner of being out there that gets the dubstep and says, "hey, they're playing our song, let's go take their planet" then I'm thinking that maybe they're just as unnatural as us. Both of us would be inevitable, but very unnatural... if that makes any sense. Even moreso, ethically, WHY are we allowed to develop in that way? Inevitability again is the most logical balanced answer. Which goes back to the original chuckle... if all of this (the universe, multiverse, creation) comes from sheer inevitability, then ok. But if it's an organized and orchestrated thing, and inevitability is mathematics which is a planned and organized thing, then us finding a being just as screwed as us, no matter what the probability because when you actually find one (or one shows up) then all probability goes to 100%.... and whatever happens next is... what it is i guess.

Still... an asteroid killing us, or another being coming to kill us... if unplanned and just inevitable then, meh, ok... but that whole game being rigged by some conscious being then you can't help but to think that being that screwed up is natural, and all of the other creatures and ways of being which seem limited to not developing beyond the balance and their means are not so unnatural, but kind of an example of what to emulate or even envy in a way.

I dunno. I'm watching videos of sniper scopes and wondering why someone would want to create a scope that automatically reads what you're aiming at, reads the wind, knows the type of bullet you have, and then tells you where... from 200 yards away (two football fields) where to put the bullet. We're at that level of "advancement".... some other being capable of leaping worlds... with that mindset... I have no words.

 

[Catastrophe]

"Irrationality is the square root of all evil" Douglas Hofstadter

Cat

P.S. I think that (reasoned that) we are about a billion times more likely to be hit by an asteroid than attacked by 'wicked' aliens.

The reason I believe this, is that communication, let alone travel, is most unlikely, and, to be honest, the speed of light cannot be exceeded without recourse to SF scenarios. Not only are there the distances between candidate planets, but, much more importantly, are the distances in time. If any civilisation were to develop on the Centauri system, it is extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely to happen at the time when there was an adequate civilisation on this backward survivor of the Late Heavy Bombardment. More likely, their development coincided with our dinosaurs, or even before the formation of the Solar System, or will coincide with the Sun's red giant phase.

"there's more of a probability of an actual undeveloped planet (the rock, physical mass) coming to kill us than the developed inhabitants of a planet "

So we agree!


Cat

 

[Zephaniah Chesterfield]

The reason I believe this, is that communication, let alone travel, is most unlikely, and, to be honest, the speed of light cannot be exceeded without recourse to SF scenarios. Not only are there the distances between candidate planets, but, much more importantly, are the distances in time.

I'll admit it... that Greer fella is fascinating to me. So there's that (trying to remember the name of it) Beyond Disclosure i think it is, flick, fairly new... but in that flick it gets into people willing UFO's into not only this airspace/planet but into this dimension. Airspace is one thing, because there's plenty there, just in other dimensions, but to cross over goes a little beyond time and space. Consciousness is the factor in that respect, the mind is the gateway/wormhole the other magnet doing the attracting. For our (humanity's) mind to be so warlike, and flat out greedy and ignorant, and to actively be seeking out others like it with an intention to find one which dwarfs us is an amazing concept. With the fruition of such endeavors we'll will an asteroid into us and on it will be an "alien" species aiming their cannons and we'll all [ker-plop] together.

 

[Catastrophe]

Why should we wait for aliens, or even asteroids, when we can kill ourselves off in half the time? . . . . . . . . . or probably a lot sooner?

Cat


P.S. Dimensions - there you have another variable to decrease the likelihood even further!

If there is anything in String Theory (which I doubt), we have at least 11 to worry about, or rejoice in, as the case may be.

 

[Zephaniah Chesterfield]

If there is anything in String Theory (which I doubt), we have at least 11 to worry about, or rejoice in, as the case may be.

Lets go all out, lol.... So, we're in the hologram version of one dimension of the multiverse... where a giant rock gravitating towards our own self destructive thoughts in the perfect union and balance of that rock's own non-conscious will and our collective conscious will as our self-destructive nature has instinctively developed us into this god-like advanced state of being, and that giant rock may have been summoned from a rip in dimensions from us tampering and probing and poking and advancing... for our survival... and we released it from the mist..... and that is more probably than an alien hearing the dubstep and saying, "They've got pepsi, i can feel it, and our planet needs pepsi... we're driving over there and taking that pepsi... for the glory of FO-33VN5E$% aka Thundera!!!"

and NO... do not wonder why they speak English. Everyone speaks english. Every alien on tv just instinctively knows it. Cavemen spoke in english subtitles. Maybe that's why they're coming. Because everyone speaks english and everything tastes like chicken.


CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE 5TH KIND... that's the Greer movie I was thinking of.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Did anyone actually get around to looking at this?

2205.11618.pdf (arxiv.org)

Cat

Yes, I have read it. As I said earlier, I spent a lot of time being a risk analyst. So, building models from conceptualizations into mathematics and then trying to quantify the parameters so as to get a mathematical result is a process that I am familiar with as both a practitioner and a reviewer.

There is a saying among modelers that "All models are wrong; some models are useful." They are all "wrong" because they are all "incomplete" in the sense that they are almost always mathematical simplifications, and almost always fail to include phenomena that we don't know about or understand very well. Still, in order to be "useful", a model needs to show us something we really did not understand to begin with, and that understanding has to be close enough to the truth to not be misleading.

It is hard to say that his model is useful. Starting with its concept of a conditional probability of an alien species that exists and has the ability to reach earth being inclined to be hostile to us: I don't think this paper has a clue about how to quantify that parameter, which is its main attempt to advance our thinking and thereby be useful.

We have had many other attempts to quantify the other parameters, including the existence of planets, life, technological capabilities, etc. So, the main addition to that current thinking is the conditional probability of hostility. We have already discussed alternative concepts for that parameter in this thread, and, personally, I think some of those are better concepts. The thrust of the subject article was a statistical analysis of human warfare over about 1 century. I just don't believe that is useful to project a probability of hostility for a different species at a far different stage of development.

Trying to look at the same question from the perspective of a "realist", I note the following:

"Space rocks" have a reasonably well documented history of disrupting life on this planet, so we can estimate probability for impacts of various sizes reasonably well. And, more recently, we have been compiling a catalog of things in orbit around the sun that might hit us some time in the future. So, we do have some reasonable basis for estimating probabilities of damage by happenstance of being in the same place at the same time as one of those rocks. There is still the unknowable unknown about collision with space rocks that come from outside the solar system, and we are just beginning to realize that they also have a finite probability of impacting Earth. See https://www.space.com/first-interstellar-object-detected-classified-data

We have no geological/paleontological evidence that any intelligent creatures ever visited Earth in the past. That does not mean that it did not happen, but it does seem to indicate that, if it did, they did not devastate the planet beyond habitability.

If it did happen in the past, it was not because the aliens saw a message from our civilization. So, the real question is whether humans sending messages into the cosmos, intentionally or unintentionally, is changing the probability that aliens may come here.

In that sense, how would knowing that there is technological life here change another species objectives for space travel to prioritize our planet? Would they come to make contact and learn about us out of scientific curiosity? Or, would they come here to exploit what we have (resources, slave labor, laboratory specimens) because they are driven by needs for their own species? Or, would they avoid us, because we do look dangerous?

We really have no data on which to build a model of another species conditions, thinking processes or intentions. Even basing such a model only on interactions between humans seems off-base to me, since the aliens are not likely to be "human". That is why I previously suggested that we need to consider how humans interact with other species on our own planet. That looks much worse than what this paper used.

Bottom line for me is that this paper reaches a risk comparison conclusion that seems to be approximately correct: we are in greater danger from collisions with space rocks than from invasion by aliens. But, I reached my tentative conclusion by realizing that we have documented evidence of multiple collisions in the past, and no evidence at all that there are other technological species inhabiting any planets anywhere near Earth.

But, all of that could change substantially, because we are looking for some evidence in areas where we currently have no evidence. Any shred of evidence that there is another technological species anywhere in our galaxy could be a real game changer for calculations like this.

 

[Zephaniah Chesterfield]

What would be the probability that another "alien" species/being just ends up here, and naturally destroys us all? Or at least lays the ground work for it. I wonder how many bacteria are "made from the same glorious wonderful stardust" some stoners are proud to claim to be made of. True we're all atoms and thoughts, and in that, is there anything that's truly "alien"?

..."just ends up here"... like, just floated off of some rock from whatever circumstances, and actually makes it through the atmosphere... lands... and goes to work. Like a living space Forrest Gump Feather... which we can now call the Gump Feather Theory, lol.

 

[Catastrophe]

PLEASE READ WHAT I POSTED:

P.S. I think that (reasoned that) we are about a billion times more likely to be hit by an asteroid than attacked by 'wicked' aliens.

The reason I believe this, is that communication, let alone travel, is most unlikely, and, to be honest, the speed of light cannot be exceeded without recourse to SF scenarios. Not only are there the distances between candidate planets, but, much more importantly, are the distances in time. If any civilisation were to develop on the Centauri system, it is extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely to happen at the time when there was an adequate civilisation on this backward survivor of the Late Heavy Bombardment. More likely, their development coincided with our dinosaurs, or even before the formation of the Solar System, or will coincide with the Sun's red giant phase.

QUOTE
"there's more of a probability of an actual undeveloped planet (the rock, physical mass) coming to kill us than the developed inhabitants of a planet "
QUOTE

So we agree!


Cat

 

[Zephaniah Chesterfield]

well, like... hmm.. what is word... a bacteria. We dump trash into space. I'm sure "they" take into consideration the atmosphere of space (or the stuff in the space) and how it effects the debris we chuck out there so we can have faster internet and a bungalow for when we completely trash this planet and then move to space (smh), but let's say that there's just weathering that comes from some particle already in the vicinity of our space trash/junk... which causes a new form of rust, which when falling to the planet oxidizes and changes it's structure because it's never had to react to oxygen before and that when hitting the ocean becomes some new space covid. It's not really a conscious form of being but it is a living one, one conscious enough to learn to adapt to survive and grow, like a parasite or fungus.... how likely do you think that is? Even with astronauts decontaminating, what's the probability that someone out there got a stain on their suit, and when it gets here it'll react in a negative way? Of course it's all hypothetical, but everything is hypothetical until it shows up.

So it's not the rock, but like a puddle with strange dirt, so when that piece of rock hits the atmosphere it burns, radiates the puddle which evaporates and alters the dirt, so when that chunk of dirt impacts it mixes with the dirt or water here, which activates something. Yeah, the chances of it developing so rapidly it would effect us, like you say, would have had to have happened back in the paleo eras and so forth, which means.... we could be that reacted killer dirt. Hmmm.... interesting.

 

[Mergatroid]

I find it hard to believe (very hard) that any human being can make anywhere near an accurate estimation of this.

Since we know absolutely nothing about aliens, it's impossible to say what they might do or how many civilizations there might be.

The entire thing is just an exercise in futility.

 

[Catastrophe]

In their reference:

2205.11618.pdf (arxiv.org)

The abstract states:

"These findings could serve as a starting point for an international debate about sending the first serious interstellar radio messages to nearby potentially habitable planets."

We are showing in these threads that there is virtually zero chance of finding alien inhabited planets within 25 light years. Beyond that, communication is virtually impossible until - if ever - ftl communication were to become possible. Developed civilisations may arise / or may have arisen, but that might have occurred before 1066 - or before the Solar System formed, or it may happen in 500 years, or after our Sun has gone Red Giant.


4 hostile alien civilizations may lurk in the Milky Way, a new study suggests

Even if they do (which I seriously doubt), we are most unlikely to come across them.

My reply: In these circumstances, we are probably about a trillion times more likely to be hit by an asteroid - and that, in itself, is pretty unlikely.


Cat

 

[sam85geo]

An insightful discussion. IMO, in today's time period, the only "hostile" aliens worth worrying about are Earth's H. Sapiens nationalistic tribes that through rapaciousness, avarice, ignorance, depravation, paranoia and psychopathy might put the genus Homo early onto the "path" to extinction via warfare and/or economic exploitation.