The native American thing isn’t analogous to paperclipping because they weren’t exterminated as part of a deliberate plan.
The alien encounter thing isn’t all that analogous, either. It makes a little sense for paperclippers to take resources from humans, because humans are at least nearby. How much sense does it make sense to cross interstellar space to take resources from a species that is likely to fight back?
The ready made economic answer to intra species conflict is to make use of the considerable amounts of no-mans-land the universe has provided you with to stay out if each other’s way.
Non interaction was historically an option when the human population was much lower. Since the universe appears not to be densekey populated , my argument is that the same strategy would be favoured.
There have been wars over land since humans have existed. And non interaction, even if initially widespread, clearly eventually stopped when it became clear the world wasn’t infinite and that particular parts had special value and were contested by multiple tribes. Australia being huge and largely empty didn’t stop European tribes from having a series of wars increasing in intensity until we had WW1 and WW2, which were unfathomably violent and huge clashes over ideology and resources. This is what happened in Europe, where multiple tribes of comparable strength grew up near each other over a period of time. In America, settlers simply neutralized Native Americans while the settlers’ technological superiority was overwhelming, a much better idea than simply letting them grow powerful enough to eventually challenge you.
You write as though the amount of free land or buffer zone was constant, that is, as though the world population was constant. My point t was that walking in separate directions was a more viable option when the population was much lower...that, where available, it is usually an attractive option because it is like cost. That’s a probabilistic argument. The point is probabilistic. There have always been wars, the question is how many.
Do I really have to explain why Australia wasn’t a buffer zone between European nations? On a planet, there is no guarantee that rival nations won’t be cheek by jowl, but galactic civilisations are guaranteed to be separated by interstellar space. Given reasonable assumptions about the scarcity of intelligent life, and the light barrier, the situation is much better than it ever was on earth.
Native Americans were “neutralized” mostly as a side effect of the diseases brought by colonists, and then outcompeted by economically more successful cultures. Instead of strategic effort to prevent WW1 and WW2 happening on another continent, settlers from different European nations actually had “violent clash over resources” with each other. (also here)
The reasoning may seem sound, but it doesn’t correspond to historical facts.
“So what might really aged civilizations do? Disperse, of course, and also not attack new arrivals in the galaxy, for fear that they might not get them all. Why? Because revenge is probably selected for in surviving species, and anybody truly looking out for long-term interests will not want to leave a youthful species with a grudge, sneaking around behind its back...”
This is why you want to have colonies and habitats outside the Sol system especially,
The native American thing isn’t analogous to paperclipping because they weren’t exterminated as part of a deliberate plan.
The alien encounter thing isn’t all that analogous, either. It makes a little sense for paperclippers to take resources from humans, because humans are at least nearby. How much sense does it make sense to cross interstellar space to take resources from a species that is likely to fight back?
The ready made economic answer to intra species conflict is to make use of the considerable amounts of no-mans-land the universe has provided you with to stay out if each other’s way.
Kicking the can down the road doesn’t seem to be a likely action of an intelligent civilisation.
Best to control us while they still can, or while the resulting war will not result in unparalleled destruction.
Why? Provide some reasoning.
Non interaction was historically an option when the human population was much lower. Since the universe appears not to be densekey populated , my argument is that the same strategy would be favoured.
There have been wars over land since humans have existed. And non interaction, even if initially widespread, clearly eventually stopped when it became clear the world wasn’t infinite and that particular parts had special value and were contested by multiple tribes. Australia being huge and largely empty didn’t stop European tribes from having a series of wars increasing in intensity until we had WW1 and WW2, which were unfathomably violent and huge clashes over ideology and resources. This is what happened in Europe, where multiple tribes of comparable strength grew up near each other over a period of time. In America, settlers simply neutralized Native Americans while the settlers’ technological superiority was overwhelming, a much better idea than simply letting them grow powerful enough to eventually challenge you.
You write as though the amount of free land or buffer zone was constant, that is, as though the world population was constant. My point t was that walking in separate directions was a more viable option when the population was much lower...that, where available, it is usually an attractive option because it is like cost. That’s a probabilistic argument. The point is probabilistic. There have always been wars, the question is how many.
Do I really have to explain why Australia wasn’t a buffer zone between European nations? On a planet, there is no guarantee that rival nations won’t be cheek by jowl, but galactic civilisations are guaranteed to be separated by interstellar space. Given reasonable assumptions about the scarcity of intelligent life, and the light barrier, the situation is much better than it ever was on earth.
This seems like very sound reasoning.
Native Americans were “neutralized” mostly as a side effect of the diseases brought by colonists, and then outcompeted by economically more successful cultures. Instead of strategic effort to prevent WW1 and WW2 happening on another continent, settlers from different European nations actually had “violent clash over resources” with each other. (also here)
The reasoning may seem sound, but it doesn’t correspond to historical facts.
Ah, you have been at Atomic Rockets, reading up on aliens? The only reason they came up with.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/aliens.php
“So what might really aged civilizations do? Disperse, of course, and also not attack new arrivals in the galaxy, for fear that they might not get them all. Why? Because revenge is probably selected for in surviving species, and anybody truly looking out for long-term interests will not want to leave a youthful species with a grudge, sneaking around behind its back...”
This is why you want to have colonies and habitats outside the Sol system especially,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283986931_The_Dark_Forest_Rule_One_Solution_to_the_Fermi_Paradox
Anything remotely resembling humans can’t win a war against an extremely smart AI that had millions of years to optimize itself.