Kevin Daly
Skilled Investigator
When discussing real or theoretical non-human beings with advanced technology, people often assume certain things to be true which are not necessarily so. Some of these assumptions are understandable reactions against anthropocentrism, but it is important to remember that just because one idea is false, an opposite idea is not necessarily true.
Are assumptions are not value-related but simply scientifically dubious.
1) Assumption of intellectual superiority. It is often assumed that a species more technologically advanced than our own must be intellectually superior. Our own history demonstrates that there is no basis for such a belief. Homo sapiens sapiens has been around for around 200,000 years, and for most of that time had a Palaeolithic technology. But we are not more intelligent than our ancestors (intelligence in fact arguably had more survival value them than it does for us).
In fact, if you remember that even human cultures do not progress at the same rate via the same steps, it is perfectly feasible for a species whose individual members are on average somewhat less intelligent than your average human to have achieved an extremely advanced technology, given enough time.
2) Assumption that technology implies knowledge. It is possible that a species may possess advanced technology inherited from their ancestors, but the scientific basis of which they no longer understand. We might encounter species who believe that their own technology is magic.
3) Assumption of non-human moral superiority/ uniqueness of human perfidy.
This covers two different ideas: one is that owing to having reached a certain stage of development, the aliens (or whatever) must be enlightened and so on. The other is that the human race is unusually vile.
I'll deal with the first. This itself comes in two major forms: the New Agey belief in Ascended Masters and Higher Planes and so forth (to which I'd just like to say "It's bullshit, now please shut up"), and the idea sometimes put forward that a society that has advanced to a certain technological level will necessarily be peaceful and so on - I think the Nazis clearly demonstrated that there is no correlation between technological and moral progress. It is all too easy to imagine Fascists In Space.
A different idea, and one David seems to be fond of (pardon me David if I'm misrepresenting your point of view) is that the human race is so violent, cruel, perverse and generally destructive that any advanced cultures that came into contact with us would necessarily avoid us like the plague and regard us as savages on that account.
I have to admit I feel the pull of this idea: I remember for instance when I was living in Europe around the turn of the century, and a story broke about a massive pedophile network...After reading the details of the story in the paper I felt physically and spiritually ill, and deeply depressed. For about a week I felt that the best thing that could happen to the human race was extinction, and it couldn't happen soon enough.
The trouble with the notion of humans being unusually bad is that it is as irrational as the idea of humans being unusually good (or gifted, whatever). Since we are the only signficantly technological species we know of (Shut Up Stephen Greer), we are working from a sample of one. Statistically useless. Many of our unlovely characteristics are an understandable outcome of evolutionary forces that could be expected to apply anywhere in similar circumstances (which doesn't mean we have to be be that way: biology is not destiny).
4) Assumption that old stars = old civilisations. It is often assumed that if a star is older than our own sun, any civilisation it hosted would be millions of years more advanced than our own (which itself falsely assumes that cultures proceed at a predictable rate along a linear path of development).
There are at least two problems with this.
a) The oldest stellar systems are unlikely to be good candidates for advanced civilsations. Most of the metals we use, have used and will use, and also some that are actually crucial to our biology, were forged in the hearts of long dead stars. The young stars inherit lots of useful goodies in that respect that simply didn't exist in earlier generations of stars or any planets they may have had (it's also possible that rocky planet formation would be less likely for those stellar systems)
b) Both biological and technological evolution are hit and miss. Things happen or don't happen, according to the way the dice fall. There is no reason to assume that suitable planets would produce intelligent, technology-capable life at the same rate (once again the problem with extrapolating from a sample of one) - and we know for a fact that cultural and scientific evolution does not proceed at a regular or predictable rate. A lot comes down to accidents of history and the choices of individuals - even the shape of continents can make a difference. It is perfectly possible that there is a species out there somewhere that is a million years older than ourselves, perhaps on average more intelligent, but still at the Palaeolithic level of development that as I mentioned earlier accounts for most of our time here. There could be any number of cultural, geological or climatic factors that would make that likely.
Conversely of course, a species significantly younger than ourselves may have got on the technological bandwagon earlier and/or progressed much farther, either because of an inherent advantage in intelligence or because of the particular details of their world and its history.
Are assumptions are not value-related but simply scientifically dubious.
1) Assumption of intellectual superiority. It is often assumed that a species more technologically advanced than our own must be intellectually superior. Our own history demonstrates that there is no basis for such a belief. Homo sapiens sapiens has been around for around 200,000 years, and for most of that time had a Palaeolithic technology. But we are not more intelligent than our ancestors (intelligence in fact arguably had more survival value them than it does for us).
In fact, if you remember that even human cultures do not progress at the same rate via the same steps, it is perfectly feasible for a species whose individual members are on average somewhat less intelligent than your average human to have achieved an extremely advanced technology, given enough time.
2) Assumption that technology implies knowledge. It is possible that a species may possess advanced technology inherited from their ancestors, but the scientific basis of which they no longer understand. We might encounter species who believe that their own technology is magic.
3) Assumption of non-human moral superiority/ uniqueness of human perfidy.
This covers two different ideas: one is that owing to having reached a certain stage of development, the aliens (or whatever) must be enlightened and so on. The other is that the human race is unusually vile.
I'll deal with the first. This itself comes in two major forms: the New Agey belief in Ascended Masters and Higher Planes and so forth (to which I'd just like to say "It's bullshit, now please shut up"), and the idea sometimes put forward that a society that has advanced to a certain technological level will necessarily be peaceful and so on - I think the Nazis clearly demonstrated that there is no correlation between technological and moral progress. It is all too easy to imagine Fascists In Space.
A different idea, and one David seems to be fond of (pardon me David if I'm misrepresenting your point of view) is that the human race is so violent, cruel, perverse and generally destructive that any advanced cultures that came into contact with us would necessarily avoid us like the plague and regard us as savages on that account.
I have to admit I feel the pull of this idea: I remember for instance when I was living in Europe around the turn of the century, and a story broke about a massive pedophile network...After reading the details of the story in the paper I felt physically and spiritually ill, and deeply depressed. For about a week I felt that the best thing that could happen to the human race was extinction, and it couldn't happen soon enough.
The trouble with the notion of humans being unusually bad is that it is as irrational as the idea of humans being unusually good (or gifted, whatever). Since we are the only signficantly technological species we know of (Shut Up Stephen Greer), we are working from a sample of one. Statistically useless. Many of our unlovely characteristics are an understandable outcome of evolutionary forces that could be expected to apply anywhere in similar circumstances (which doesn't mean we have to be be that way: biology is not destiny).
4) Assumption that old stars = old civilisations. It is often assumed that if a star is older than our own sun, any civilisation it hosted would be millions of years more advanced than our own (which itself falsely assumes that cultures proceed at a predictable rate along a linear path of development).
There are at least two problems with this.
a) The oldest stellar systems are unlikely to be good candidates for advanced civilsations. Most of the metals we use, have used and will use, and also some that are actually crucial to our biology, were forged in the hearts of long dead stars. The young stars inherit lots of useful goodies in that respect that simply didn't exist in earlier generations of stars or any planets they may have had (it's also possible that rocky planet formation would be less likely for those stellar systems)
b) Both biological and technological evolution are hit and miss. Things happen or don't happen, according to the way the dice fall. There is no reason to assume that suitable planets would produce intelligent, technology-capable life at the same rate (once again the problem with extrapolating from a sample of one) - and we know for a fact that cultural and scientific evolution does not proceed at a regular or predictable rate. A lot comes down to accidents of history and the choices of individuals - even the shape of continents can make a difference. It is perfectly possible that there is a species out there somewhere that is a million years older than ourselves, perhaps on average more intelligent, but still at the Palaeolithic level of development that as I mentioned earlier accounts for most of our time here. There could be any number of cultural, geological or climatic factors that would make that likely.
Conversely of course, a species significantly younger than ourselves may have got on the technological bandwagon earlier and/or progressed much farther, either because of an inherent advantage in intelligence or because of the particular details of their world and its history.
