Imagine there was another Earthlike planet in our system

[Jdvn1]

Said many, many nations in recorded history, actually. And that was towards fellows of the same species.

Civilizations destroyed as a result of pure paranoia? I don't think so. If anything, there have been land-grabs: the Mongols, Native American Indians, the Crusades. Still, for the most part, they have been isolated occurrences in history, and there are more that have been unsuccessful.

No, instead, look at the fact that those have been temporary and unsuccessful outliers in how the world works. North Korea even makes deals with the US. And when they reneg on the deal a year later, there still isn't a war, despite plenty of paranoic fearmongering.

There is trade between plenty of unequal countries, many of whom could squash the other. They don't, because that'd be a terrible idea. Even the Riot of London in 1189 (which I think you alluded to) isn't an example of paranoic civilization-killing.

 

[Umbran]

Um. I'm symied by the no politics/religion rule, but dude, wingnuts dictate policy all the time.

I understand the stymie, there. I'll leave it at this...

The wingnuts don't *dictate* policy. I am cynical enough to think that the major figures who look like they almost dictate policy 1) are not themselves wingnuts or true believers, but are generally the more insidious and calculating sort who make themselves appealing to wingnuts. 2) Don't actually dictate policy, but instead do a lot of back room dealing - if you have lots of help and support, it isn't dictating.

Your beliefs may differ.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'll go as far to say this: there have been regimes in which the true wingnuts did dictate policy, but they are rare and getting rarer. They often do have powerful military forces and some have even gone to war over utter lies spouted from their kooky leadership...but the wingnuts who do so don't often last long.

The incidence of those wingnuts is, by my reading of history, declining. However, the more advanced weaponry becomes, the less time & effort it takes for a true nutjob to ruin everyone's party.

Or to put it differently: the incidence of wingnuts in power has declined, but the potential consequences of their rulership has increased.

 

[Derren]

Only with great difficulty and crippling costs. Which is another way of saying - not realistically. Further, both sides would be further advantaged by trade. Think about how this already doesn't happen on an international level.
They probably think in a similar manner to how we do - but regardless, that doesn't matter. We'd have a chance to communicate with them first and find out how they think. Which brings me back around to seeing how this already doesn't happen on an international level - diplomacy is typically the first response. It's also the cheapest and most potentially beneficial response. The immediate response of war hurts more than it helps because not only is it costly, it prevents trade and diverts money from more economically efficient enterprises.

There is absolutely nothing we could trade with them.
And no, we would have no idea how they think even when we can communicate with them. Maybe after centuries but not decades. And this is exactly why there will be a military buildup.
1. They are different/not us.
2. They are a threat.
3. We have no idea if they mean us harm or not. And when in doubt, the answer is yes.

 

[Umbran]

We wipe out species here at an alarming rate for some of the dumbest reasons.

Yes, but almost never *intentionally*. We don't actively set out to destroy species often, it just happens as a result of our thoughtlessness.

White tigers get all the attention, but are small.

I think your information here is inaccurate. You are correct that the white Siberian tigers we see in captivity aren't pure Siberian tigers - they were produced by breeding standard Siberian tigers with white Bengal tigers - the gene for the white coat has never been observed in the Siberian tigers in the wild.

But, white Bengal tigers are not, and were not, a "breed" or subspecies. They're just tigers with a specific mutated gene for coat color. About one in 15,000 wild Bengal tiger births results in a white tiger.

 

[tomBitonti]

Now I'm intrigued. What is the most cost-effective way, starting with our current technology, to annihilate a civilization on Mars.

Something to reduce the cost of getting payloads into space is a must. I think I read that we have the technology today to conceivably build a space elevator from the surface of the moon. So maybe you spend a high investment to get a base on the moon, then build lunar solar panels that can generate enough energy for us to produce antimatter. This requires, of course, figuring out how to contain antimatter for a long period of time (and I think if we can do that, we can just as easily pull off fusion).

Couldn't we redirect an asteroid with today's technologies, and at a smaller cost than the $5Trillion (est) for the gulf wars?

Also, if environmental issues were taken off the table, won't that open new technologies for use? An object to using Plutonium as a power source, for example, is the consequence of a launch failure putting plutonium in the environment.

Speaking of which, depending on the biochemistry, spreading a fine dusting of plutonium over major cultivated or populated areas could be devastating.

Of course, if we want to occupy the planet afterwards, that makes a big difference. *Smallish* redirects of asteroids might be OK, but one big ecosystem killer would be a bad idea. Nuclear-biological-chemical might also be problematic, depending on the lifetime of the material used.

TomB

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There is absolutely nothing we could trade with them.

That is an assumption without foundation.

At a the very least, it is highly improbable that their technology is identical to ours, so trading scientific data could be beneficial to both sides of the equation.

 

[Jdvn1]

There is absolutely nothing we could trade with them.
And no, we would have no idea how they think even when we can communicate with them. Maybe after centuries but not decades.

Why couldn't we trade information with them? Why couldn't we communicate with them? The technology exists for both and has existed for quite some time.

 

[Joker]

The issue of needing a socio-economic basis for really major expenditures of resources is not at all anthropocentric. It is thermodynamics, really. As a living thing, you have limited resources. You spend those resources to maintain and expand your resources. If you spend too much, you lose the energy-game, and you die.

Nowhere did I say the need for resources was an anthropocentric viewpoint. That would be silly to think even with my limited knowledge of science.
I do say that it is quite possible that their way of looking at the world around them is so different as to be incomprehensible.

Our actions are generally driven by what resources it is economical for us to get. In the scenario under discussion, mining the asteroids profitably is beyond our capabilities when first contact happens, so it isn't an issue yet. We may go to war *eventually*, but not in the timeframe under discussion.

What everyone here saying "we would go to war" is forgetting is that nature knows more than "kill or be killed". Nature also knows cooperative relationships...

Your guts, for example. You realize that in your small intestine, you host more bacteria than there are humans on the face of the Earth, by some orders of magnitude? You realize that not only do they live there, but that without them you'd die of malnutrition? Do you realize that *every cell in your body* is an example of such a relationship - your mitochondria are an example of a mutual relationship that has lasted so long, we forget that at one time there wasn't a thing called a eukaryotic cell....

Given some time when we *aren't* in direct competition for resources, we could well develop a mutual relationship that's good for both species...

While becoming the workhorses in the intestines of some giant Martian psychic behemoth may qualify as some sort of commensalist or mutualistic relationship, there is a limit to the our definition of cooperation.

Sillyness aside, cooperative relationships in nature are only possible because the two creatures are able to communicate with each other, through chemical triggers, non verbal or verbal communication.

I cannot stress enough that unless the Martians are so very similar to us that communication would be extraordinarily difficult. Which would, in the best case, severely hamper our cooperation and in the worst case foster enmity.

They probably think in a similar manner to how we do - but regardless, that doesn't matter. We'd have a chance to communicate with them first and find out how they think. Which brings me back around to seeing how this already doesn't happen on an international level - diplomacy is typically the first response. It's also the cheapest and most potentially beneficial response. The immediate response of war hurts more than it helps because not only is it costly, it prevents trade and diverts money from more economically efficient enterprises.

On your first point. I can't see how you can say that they probably think in a similar way we do. While you can theorize that they had to have the same type of progress in technology as we had this in no way means they think like us. All it means is that there is a slim possibility we can empathize with them and maybe they with us.

On your second point. It's very true that diplomacy is cheapest, in the short and usually the long run. However, this level of international diplomacy is fairly recent. It's the product of millennia of conflict.

 

[Derren]

Why couldn't we trade information with them? Why couldn't we communicate with them? The technology exists for both and has existed for quite some time.

Communication != understanding.
And what information would we trade? They have a similar technological level, so trading technology is not that profitable and unlikely to result in a big breakthrough on either side. The only information we could trade is about the respective planets/lifeforms/history, etc. And those information are either sensitive (bioweapons) or unimportant.