Michio Kaku Discusses Alien Invasion

[RenaissanceLady]

Specifically, he says that an alien invasion would be like "Bambi meeting Godzilla."

Alien invasion would be like ‘Bambi meeting Godzilla’ according to Michio Kaku | Openminds.tv

I am curious that he thinks that the aliens would probably be peaceful because they've had thousands of years to work out their problems. Time hasn't made mankind more peaceful but rather given us more complex things to fight about. I like his "anthill" analogy but I fear it would more likely be the equivalent of the conquistadors meeting the Native Americans or any other time one mighty civilization meets a weaker one. This is how civilizations collapse.

 

[Muadib]

Interesting and I agree, I think it would depend more on the type of communication and society they had than on the amount of time they've been around. If they're telepathic and/or a hive mind type society, it's likely that within their own ranks they would be very peaceful, as things like hatred, prejudice, mental illness and so forth would have to be quickly dealt with or stamped out for the good of the whole. How they deal with outsiders may be a whole other matter.

If they're like us, ie people who's minds are closed to one another, who develop preferences and prejudices based on their personal experiences and the level of exposure they have to different cultures and/or level of education, it's very likely that they'll be as fractured and aggressive as our society can be. Just because they've been around a long time doesn't mean they're going to be a bunch of mini Buddhas.

If they're a space travel based society, ie they live in their ships and wander from system to system in search of resources, having lost their planet to some disaster or accident or simply the depletion of their own resources through overpopulation or some kind of planet wide environmental problems, they may have had to eliminate some of the extremes of their preferences and prejudices, simply to survive the harshness of space travel. The focus would be more on survival and the good of the fleet, rather than on what they preferred personally. I think it's also more likely that they would be very interested in exploiting our vast natural resources, either covertly or overtly, if they had no planet of their own to return to.

It's definitely a fun subject to speculate on, but we'll never really know for sure until they show up, or if they're already here, they make themselves known to us on a larger scale.

 

[boomerang]

Good link. Conceptualizing the mindset of an intellectually and culturally superior species is a near hopeless yet fascinating task. Imagining what "they" might want, much less what we might have that "they" would want, leaves us extrapolating by historical analogy. Still, we cannot help but wonder. I keep coming back to information--perhaps as encoded in DNA sequencing--as a possible inter-galactic currency. If you think of the evolutionary process (however it really works) as a billion years long computational process grinding away at possible solutions, perhaps information contained in biological organisms would have intrinsic value. Or, this theory could just as easily be so much anthropocentric bunk.

Intergalactic good guys or bad guys? I could as easily imagine our superiors scorning us for weakness and stupidity as for lack of compassion. Although, I hope not.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

Of course, some of this begs to ask if these things are actually the "aliens". I do take into consideration the Panspermia Theory and know that a former professor of astronomy at Cornell even suggested "accidental panspermia" as the cause of life on Earth. I often question if what people are (allegedly) seeing is indicative of true alien technology or if these crafts or beings are simply a natural part of Earth's condition, if not something else entirely. People have been seeing and reporting strange beings and crafts for as long as there's been people alive to do so. The "aliens"may have always been here, whereas it's (theoretically) possible that we cannot say the same thing of ourselves. I've said before that what we consider to be "paranormal" may simply be what we lack the ability to reference or measure at this time. This might be worth discussing at some other point.

Regarding what Michio Kaku had stated, I'd admit it's possible that any being with the technology to travel across the galaxy can easily find planets and resources without needing to bother us. We easily could be too unimportant to pester. At the same time, is there any reason why a technologically advanced and/or extremely intelligent race must be sane or good by our standards? Haven't we all just learned, again, that extremely intelligent and scientific individuals can sometimes be off the Richter Scale bats*** crazy and might be capable of committing profoundly evil acts? What we consider good or evil and what we consider sane or insane need not extend beyond human reasoning and our own moral codes. These don't apply to the animal kingdom and often don't apply to other human civilizations. For example: Our culture values a God that would sacrifice his own son for the good of humanity. In some Mesoamerican cultures, human sacrifices were needed to placate a God. Different ideas of what's sane and good, in action. It's therefore possible that an "alien" species has values and reasoning entirely different than our own.

 

[Ezechiel]

I think 'bumping' into each other would probably better describe any 'meeting'. As we expand our reach way beyond our home planets the probabilities improve for such a bump. Meanwhile we are confined to our prison planet and are part of a galactic network of zoos lol

Peanuts and bananas

 

[mike]

Its a complex discussion with many facets.

First of all as has been mentioned above good and evil are relative terms, and are human constructs, they are simply labels and milage varys
For some the nailing of some poor bastard to a plank is "good", as is a creator god who drowned an entire planet to fix a mess of its own creation.
For some a tender veal steak is good, while to a vegan the eating of a baby animal is a vile concept.
Infanticide provokes a visceral reaction, but Japanese Koi in a pond will regulate the population by eating most of the hatchlings.

Good and evil are for the most part consensus based human constructs, it doesnt exist in the animal kingdom, where the kill or be killed model is considered natural and normal.

The alien issue must take this reality into account imo

It only takes one species to do the dirty on us, and to date it hasnt happened as far as we can see.
But thats from the perspective of our mayfly esq lifespans, a species with a longer lifespan can play the long game.
Once we set our minds to a goal, we generally want that done ASAP, but thats a reflection of our relatively short lifespans.

None the less it does appear as if we are being left alone, but that might change.
There may well be a set of triggers that could come into play, both for acceptance into a galactic culture or destruction by said culture.
The trigger could be as simple as setting up a colony on mars, ie living on more than one planet in our solar system.
This could mark us as truly exo planetary as a species and thus valid candidates to a galactic culture, a graduation to the next level of competence, or threat level.

Or the trigger might be more complex such as evolving from biological sentience to post biological sentience.

To me the key is to do with parity, whatever that may be, technological, social, evolutionary

 

[SonofaSkunk]

I think if "they' were going to hurt us, they would have done it by now.

 

[Ezechiel]

I think if "they' were going to hurt us, they would have done it by now.

Avatar: if they absolutely needed that unobtainium and we were in the way... By some lucky fluke we don't have anything 'they' absolutely need. Unless 'they' are actually breeding us as a weapon of mass destruction lol

 

[trainedobserver]

I think if "they' were going to hurt us, they would have done it by now.

The chilling thing is that if there is a "they" and that they is a non-human intelligence from somewhere else, then the odds are that they could have already conquered and enslaved us (whatever that would mean for them) without our knowledge. Think about it. Do cattle know they are slaves from birth? Do they know other species have entire industries dedicated to them? Just another scary thought we shouldn't give the time of day to I'm sure.

 

[Muadib]

The chilling thing is that if there is a "they" and that they is a non-human intelligence from somewhere else, then the odds are that they could have already conquered and enslaved us (whatever that would mean for them) without our knowledge. Think about it. Do cattle know they are slaves from birth? Do they know other species have entire industries dedicated to them? Just another scary thought we shouldn't give the time of day to I'm sure.

Kind of reminds me of this story:

There is a story from the East of a rich magician who had many sheep. But at the same time he was very greedy. He didn’t want to hire shepherds or place a fence around the meadow where the sheep were eating their grass. As a result the sheep were always wandering far from the herd, running in the woods or they fell into canyons and on top of all that, they were running far away because they knew that this wizard only wanted them for their meat and skin, and they didn’t like this at all.

Finally the wizard found a solution. He hypnotized his sheep and he implanted them with the idea that they were immortal and nothing would happen to them if they were skinned and also that this was for their own good and in fact a very pleasant thing to go through. He also implanted the idea that the wizard was a very good master, and that he loved his herd so much, he would do anything in the world for them. Then he told them that if something were to happen to them, it certainly wouldn’t happen to them today and therefore they need not think about it at all. Then he implanted the idea that they were not sheep at all. In some, he implanted the idea that they were lions, to others he said they were eagles, to others he said that they were humans and to others he told them they were magicians.
After that, all his concerns and worries about his sheep were at an end. They would never wander away, they would wait quietly for the time the magician would come and demand their meat and their skin.

 

[SonofaSkunk]

I think if "they' were going to hurt us, they would have done it by now.

The chilling thing is that if there is a "they" and that they is a non-human intelligence from somewhere else, then the odds are that they could have already conquered and enslaved us (whatever that would mean for them) without our knowledge. Think about it. Do cattle know they are slaves from birth? Do they know other species have entire industries dedicated to them? Just another scary thought we shouldn't give the time of day to I'm sure.

I like the way you think.

 

[Trajanus]

a former professor of astronomy at Cornell even suggested "accidental panspermia" as the cause of life on Earth.

Far from the most parsimonious view. It seems absurd to invoke an alien origin for life on a world as conducive to it as ours.

I often question if what people are (allegedly) seeing is indicative of true alien technology or if these crafts or beings are simply a natural part of Earth's condition...

If you mean a different, indigenous intelligence, barely plausible.

The "aliens"may have always been here, whereas it's (theoretically) possible that we cannot say the same thing of ourselves.

Of course we weren't always here; our species is about 200,000 years old.

Regarding what Michio Kaku had stated, I'd admit it's possible that any being with the technology to travel across the galaxy can easily find planets and resources without needing to bother us.

Sure but unfortunately, resources can be much harder to exploit on uninhabitable worlds. Mercurian, lunar, Martian and jovian water, for example, is almost entirely frozen. Btw there are many reports of aliens taking water and various other things.

We easily could be too unimportant to pester.

Given the rarity of inhabitable worlds, with advancing intelligence, we're undoubtedly important.

It's therefore possible that an "alien" species has values and reasoning entirely different than our own.

I think their reasoning would be comprehensible, since rationality is the key to progress. Despite the vast technical gap between our world and that of fifth century BCE Greece, there was much in the latter we'd recognize--propaganda, alliances etc.

 

[Trajanus]

The chilling thing is that if there is a "they" and that they is a non-human intelligence from somewhere else, then the odds are that they could have already conquered and enslaved us (whatever that would mean for them) without our knowledge.

Then why are we allowed to have militaries and R&D? And why don't the "masters" show themselves?

 

[RenaissanceLady]

Far from the most parsimonious view. It seems absurd to invoke an alien origin for life on a world as conducive to it as ours.

Google "panspermia". It's hardly some new, radical idea (having been referenced since at least the 5th Century BC). At this time, it's just a theory which may be expanded upon or dismissed altogether as new evidence and new theories are born. Therefore, panspermia is still under investigation.

If you mean a different, indigenous intelligence, barely plausible.

Based on what? People have been reporting the same things for as long as there's been people to report them. This doesn't necessarily mean an "alien" life is/was here but there may be some grain of truth to all of the sightings that have always and keep being reported, even if we don't have the ability to understand what that
commonality might be. I see the same grain of truth in many of the creation myths told the world over. For example: I don't believe there was ever a "great flood" but it's generally accepted that the world was once entirely covered in water. Early civilizations which saw sea shells in high and dry areas (such as mountain tops) might develop a philosophy or religion based on a "great flood" because, for them, that was the best answer they could find. Apply the same logic to all the sightings and it could mean anything from extraterrestrial/inter-dimensional life to some other unrecognized life or simply the affects of hallucinogenic plants on certain brain chemistries.

Of course we weren't always here; our species is about 200,000 years old.

Yes, dear. That's part of my point. With the earth being about 4.5 billion years old and mankind only being here for the briefest part of that time, could something else have been here first?

Sure but unfortunately, resources can be much harder to exploit on uninhabitable worlds.

How are you reaching this conclusion? Arecibo's Planetary Habitability Laboratory (PHL) just released a list of five worlds which could potentially be inhabitable but as far as we know, does not (yet) have life. For that matter, some planets which could not currently sustain life on its own could easily be mined for natural resources. Mars is red due to the iron oxide on its surface. Mars also contains silicon and other metals. I therefore don't understand why taking resources from these planets would be more difficult than taking resources from earth. You're also making the assumption that any alien life would never have come upon any other planets, probably much further away from earth, which could have whatever resources they need.

Mercurian, lunar, Martian and jovian water, for example, is almost entirely frozen. Btw there are many reports of aliens taking water and various other things.

And that means what to an alien species with alien technology that may be thousands of years or more advanced than our own? You're also ignoring the planets we've already found which may possibly be inhabitable and may have at least some water. You're placing human constrains on something which may not be limited by human technology or understanding. It's possible if something was advanced enough to travel the galaxy or further, it may well have found plenty of other resources to exploit.

I think their reasoning would be comprehensible, since rationality is the key to progress. Despite the vast technical gap between our world and that of fifth century BCE Greece, there was much in the latter we'd recognize--propaganda, alliances etc.

You're still be limited by human constraints. What is "rational" to us may be irrational by a more advanced (or less advanced) species. We don't even have to travel of off earth to see this. What is "rational" by one culture may seem entirely irrational to another. This is often determined by a culture's needs, experiences and technology. What was "rational" to the Conquistadors was irrational to the Mesoamericans. What is "rational" to the Military Industrial Complex may seem entirely irrational to those who think cooperation and the right to self-determination is the key to human survival. What is "rational" to those who exploit the earth without regard to sustainability is irrational to those who see sustainability as necessary for earth's survival and the survival for every species on earth. Some people see religion as the only "rational" explanation to life's questions. Others treat religion as a philosophy while still others think anything hinting of religion must be, by definition, entirely irrational.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

(For some reason, what I wrote and am showing I wrote when I hit the "Edit" button is not appearing in its final posted version. I don't know where the problem lies. I'm therefore adding part of what is missing, at least on my computer. )

Let's not confuse the "observed universe" with the entire universe. For example: If we measured and studied the ocean by what we could fit in a teaspoon (even if we repeatedly dipped that teaspoon in the ocean) we would be left with the conclusion that the ocean does not contain life and is not any more complex than a few minerals mixed in water. In comparative terms, the universe is far larger than the ocean and what we have to measure the universe is far smaller than a teaspoon. A thousand of these measurements, using these tools, may well never give us an adequate understanding of something unfathomably large and complex. We're still in kindergarten, trying to understand the ocean one teaspoon at a time.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

It is indeed easy to forget how large the universe is. Even when you know the numbers, no human mind can ever really grasp that enormity. There is a lot out there we have not even dreamt of let alone scratched the surface.
Even if we become an inter-stellar species, we'd never get anywhere near everywhere!

 

[Trajanus]

Google "panspermia". It's hardly some new, radical idea (having been referenced since at least the 5th Century BC). At this time, it's just a theory which may be expanded upon or dismissed altogether as new evidence and new theories are born. Therefore, panspermia is still under investigation.

I very much doubt it's the leading hypothesis, if it's taken seriously by most scientists, anymore.

Based on what? People have been reporting the same things for as long as there's been people to report them. This doesn't necessarily mean an "alien" life is/was here but there may be some grain of truth to all of the sightings that have always and keep being reported, even if we don't have the ability to understand what that

Aliens might've been monitoring this planet for millennia or eons but an indigenous, advanced, nonhuman intelligence isn't plausible.

For example: I don't believe there was ever a "great flood" but it's generally accepted that the world was once entirely covered in water.

Certainly not in historic times nor at any time since the latter Paleozoic at least.

With the earth being about 4.5 billion years old and mankind only being here for the briefest part of that time, could something else have been here first?

Regarding advanced earthly intelligence, there's certainly nothing in the fossil record to suggest there was.

Mars also contains silicon and other metals.

Silicon is a metal?

It's possible if something was advanced enough to travel the galaxy or further, it may well have found plenty of other resources to exploit.

I don't believe resources are the principal reason they're here, or doubt they could get resources elsewhere. But aliens/UFOs have been seen taking water and various other things, which suggests resources are at least a partial reason for their coming here.

You're still be limited by human constraints. What is "rational" to us may be irrational by a more advanced (or less advanced) species.

I was talking only about far advanced visitors. Without basic rationality, progress is impossible. I don't doubt that their society and values could be far different. But I think they're rationally comprehensible, just like certain totalitarian ideologies.

 

[Trajanus]

If we measured and studied the ocean by what we could fit in a teaspoon (even if we repeatedly dipped that teaspoon in the ocean) we would be left with the conclusion that the ocean does not contain life and is not any more complex than a few minerals mixed in water.

Baloney. Seawater contains a number of species of bacteria; a teaspoon might even catch plankton.

In comparative terms, the universe is far larger than the ocean and what we have to measure the universe is far smaller than a teaspoon. A thousand of these measurements, using these tools, may well never give us an adequate understanding of something unfathomably large and complex. We're still in kindergarten, trying to understand the ocean one teaspoon at a time.

Limited as our knowledge may still be, it can provide some insight into the probability of alien life and its degree of development. Studies of very distant objects--quasars--indicate that nucleosynthesis of biogenic elements was already well underway in the early Universe.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

I very much doubt it's the leading hypothesis, if it's taken seriously by most scientists, anymore.

Other than Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, among others? It's still being taught as a theory and whether or not it's being treated as a "leading hypothesis" or given the same credibility as other scientific theories depends on who is doing the teaching. Back in 1999, even NASA admitted the possibility that life began in outer space. I think what you're saying is that you personally don't give credit to the theory and therefore refuse to accept that some very noted scientists do.

We're all aliens... how humans began life in outer space - Science - News - The Independent

Specifically, Stephen Hawking said this in one interview:

However, there is a possibility, known as panspermia, that life could spread from planet to planet, or from stellar system to stellar system, carried on meteors. We know that Earth has been hit by meteors that came from Mars, and others may have come from further afield. We have no evidence that any meteors carried life, but it remains a possibility. An important feature of life spread by panspermia is that it would have the same basis, which would be DNA for life in the neighborhood of the Earth. On the other hand, an independent occurrence of life would be extremely unlikely to be DNA based. So watch out if you meet an alien. You could be infected with a disease against which you have no resistance.

One piece of observational evidence on the probability of life appearing is that we have fossils of algae from 3.5 billion years ago. The Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago and was probably too hot for about the first half billion years. So life appeared on Earth within half a billion years of it being possible, which is short compared to the 10 billion year lifetime of an Earth-like planet. This would suggest either panspermia or that the probability of life appearing independently is reasonably high. If it was very low, one would have expected it to take most of the 10 billion years available. If it is panspermia, any life in the solar system or in nearby stellar systems will also be DNA based.

Stephen Hawking: Why We Should Go Into Space - Panspermia Theory

He's clearly willing to consider panspermia as a legitimate theory.

Aliens might've been monitoring this planet for millennia or eons but an indigenous, advanced, nonhuman intelligence isn't plausible.

What? You're saying aliens could have been monitoring this planet but also "advanced, nonhuman intelligence isn't plausible." How can you have it both ways? Is there some moronic alien that is still capable of monitoring us for millennia?

Regarding advanced earthly intelligence, there's certainly nothing in the fossil record to suggest there was.

Google "oopart".

I'd also suggest that with the destruction of the library in Alexandria and the almost complete eradication of all Mayan manuscripts and science by the Conquistadors, we truly don't have a firm grasp of what all the ancients knew.

Silicon is a metal?

LOL. I'll admit I could have phrased that much better.

I don't believe resources are the principal reason they're here, or doubt they could get resources elsewhere. But aliens/UFOs have been seen taking water and various other things, which suggests resources are at least a partial reason for their coming here.

So... You're saying that there's no evidence of advanced civilizations ever being here but they've been observed taking water and various other things? Are you saying this is strictly a modern occurrence? I admit, you've lost me here. I'd love to know your interpretation of this.

I was talking only about far advanced visitors. Without basic rationality, progress is impossible. I don't doubt that their society and values could be far different. But I think they're rationally comprehensible, just like certain totalitarian ideologies.

"Rationality", as we define it, begins and ends with human values and even then, there are different views regarding what is "rational" among similar human cultures.

Baloney. Seawater contains a number of species of bacteria; a teaspoon might even catch plankton.

Here, let me help you with this:

met·a·phor   [met-uh-fawr, -fer]
noun
1.
a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile ( def. 1 ) .
2.
something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
Metaphor | Define Metaphor at Dictionary.com

Limited as our knowledge may still be, it can provide some insight into the probability of alien life and its degree of development. Studies of very distant objects--quasars--indicate that nucleosynthesis of biogenic elements was already well underway in the early Universe.

No one is arguing against that. I'm merely showing the difference between the "observed universe" and the universe in its entirety. The analogy of the teaspoon measuring the ocean fits in this regard.

 

[Trajanus]

He's clearly willing to consider panspermia as a legitimate theory.

OK but it's just not the most parsimonious view. Even if meteorites reached Earth from Mars and elsewhere without being sterilized by the heat of being blasted into space, and entry into our atmosphere, it's highly unlikely their original environments were more conducive to life than ours, or even as conducive.

What? You're saying aliens could have been monitoring this planet but also "advanced, nonhuman intelligence isn't plausible."

You don't read my posts carefully enough. I said an indigenous advanced, nonhuman intelligence isn't plausible.

Google "oopart".

Possible evidence for an advanced civilization here doesn't mean it was from here.

I'd also suggest that with the destruction of the library in Alexandria and the almost complete eradication of all Mayan manuscripts and science by the Conquistadors, we truly don't have a firm grasp of what all the ancients knew.

Sure, they could've elucidated many gaps in our knowledge of ancient times. But I very much doubt they'd get us to the stars. If the ancients were knowledgable in some ways, they certainly don't seem very advanced.

So... You're saying that there's no evidence of advanced civilizations ever being here but they've been observed taking water and various other things?

Again, no evidence for nonhuman civilizations native to this planet.

"Rationality", as we define it, begins and ends with human values and even then, there are different views regarding what is "rational" among similar human cultures.

One thing is for sure. The phenomenon is far advanced, and our own experience shows only rationality, as in the scientific method, is conducive to progress.