the idea of malign intent ignores the physical economic factors that are true everywhere in the universe. The amount of energy it takes to get here from the next closest place, and the necessary probability that there is at least one other planet with every element we have, in much higher quantities, and closer to them, precludes any motive to wipe us out.

given the effort involved and the alternatives, the only possible reason to contact us is benevolent. also, if there is a single other civilization within range of contacting us, statistically and necessarily, there are also millions, if not billions of others to choose from.

No, there is no malign intent. Even considering it reveals some very mid reasoning. We are very likely emerging up the evolutionary scale to become the stupidest intelligent thing in the universe, but only just over the line of what passes for intelligence among space faring civilizations. The only concievable risk is from ourselves.

▲ blacksmith_tb 8 days ago | parent | next [-]

I agree that all makes benign much more likely - the Dark Forest arguments mostly come down to "if aliens are as bad as humans (especially as bad as we were hundreds or thousands of years ago), we're doomed".

That seems extremely unlikely, we're far from advanced enough to send a probe to another solar system, by the time we are, I'd like to think we'll be even less likely to want to exterminate or enslave anyone...

▲

sebastiennight 8 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think you might be interested in reading about the orthogonality thesis, which addresses exactly that. There is very little reason to believe that advanced technology goes along advancement along the scale of (your own) morality axis.

All points of that 2D graph are available.

Edit: also I think you're misreading the Dark Forest concept. They're not saying those aliens are "as bad as [us]". It's rather akin to a prisoner's dilemma. The logic is:

#1. if only one actor is paranoid enough and strong enough, they will proactively get rid of whoever speaks up.

From this axiom comes the logical conclusion that, since we cannot be sure to avoid detection forever, the only viable survival mechanism is to be paranoid ourselves and get rid of others before they become strong enough and can enforce axiom #1.

▲

psunavy03 8 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't see why people keep conflating "advanced" technological civilizations with civilizations that happen to be "advanced" within the bounds of that particular person's individual moral worldview.

These are not the same things and "advancing" on one axis does not require "advancing" on the other axis, even taking into account the fact that beyond a certain point, one person's moral viewpoints are not necessarily universalizable in the Kantian sense.

	▲	blacksmith_tb 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		Presumably because that's been our experience with human societies? You might protest Germany in the 1930s was "modern" technologically but still "barbaric" morally - but I think that overlooks the way all the European powers were behaving in Africa and Asia, barbarism wasn't so uncommon as all that. And it's less common now, even as we've made more technical advancements? I don't think we develop on all axes in lockstep, but there's still a general trend, and I'd be pretty surprised to find aliens advanced enough to come visit who didn't already have plenty of resources, so why bother messing with us?

▲ asdff 8 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is what is compelling about the abduction angle. In effect that is exactly what a human biologist would do in an alien world: sample the population and study it. You don't need a strong economic incentive to send a field biologist someplace. Things can operate inefficiently in basic research because if one waits for economic viability many findings would not be possible.

▲ sebastiennight 8 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Religion is a good example of a solid good reason, even from a human standpoint, for undertaking large projects without a positive expected economic ROI.

And even amongst humans there are many other such factors (ego of the current leader, etc.)

You're also making economic assumptions that might be wrong at an advanced enough level of technology.

A man from the 14th century Americas might understandably believe that

    "the idea of malign intent ignores the physical economic factors that are true everywhere on this planet. The amount of energy it takes to get here from across the Atlantic, and the necessary probability that there is at least one other country with every element we have, in much higher quantities, and closer to them, precludes any motive to wipe us out. Given the effort involved and the alternatives, the only possible reason to contact us is benevolent."

A few generations later, that tribe would no longer be recorded in history, wiped out by war and smallpox brought on ships from across the world.

▲

motohagiography 8 days ago | parent [-]

there are large projects, and then there is interstellar travel. imo they aren't comparable or analogous. comparing it to boats is a kind of linear extrapolation or mapping of those effects to the present, whereas the distance between boats and faster than light craft is a non-linear mapping where all the factors contributing to its development really are different.

the analogy to 14th century Americas would be that aliens arrive, have technology for resource extraction, this disrupts the economics of the existing civilization, which then orients itself to this new technological power and factions compete to dominate brokerage of it among themselves, or to destroy it. the aliens need to secure their resource supply lines from the native factions, and when there is no peace to be had, they fight the way they know how, which wipes most of them out, or they leave and come back in a more evolved millenium.

the cultures that were strong enough to adapt, survived. the ones that weren't able to adapt, died. in a sense it was a case of the meek inheriting the earth, where natives who fought against alien technology lost, and the people in ones that adapted, lived to survive to today.

but the comparison breaks down when you substitute boats for craft capable of relativistic speeds. the sophistication required to do faster than light travel is too high to make unforced errors like that, imo.

	▲	sebastiennight 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Is there any part of your comment that would not have been applicable as-is in the 14th century based on the known laws of economics and physics in pre-Colombian America? And, from there, is there any reason to believe that we now have perfect understanding of economics and physics, which would warrant the level of absolute certainty you're showing above (despite the fact that such certainty was unwarranted in the past)?