Gbaji wrote:
If we assume they don't jump blindly into other star systems, this method somewhat requires that they send probes for great distances around them in space to find a suitable next system to scavenge for resources.
Not necessarily. We all ready have the ability to detect the presence of planets outside of our solar system. Granted, it's a lot easier to do so for larger planets (where life "as we know it" would be harder to arise), but in the last year alone the number of "known" planets has increased 25%. It isn't hard to assume then, that an FTL capable civilization has vastly more powerful sensory equipment that is not only able to find "earth like" planets, but earth like planets within the proper distance to support liquid water with an atmosphere that is "out of chemical equilibrium" (because under most conditions a planet's atmosphere will be in chemical equilibrium. "Life" throws it out of equilibrium.
Link: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/3q-seager.html
Dr. Seagar, MIT Planetary Scientist wrote:
Mostly we want to take a spectrum and look at features caused by gas molecules in a planet’s atmosphere. A planetary atmosphere that is completely out of chemical equilibrium is indicative of life, because under most conditions a planet’s atmosphere will be in chemical equilibrium. Earth's atmosphere is composed of 21 percent oxygen by volume due to plants and photosynthetic bacteria. Oxygen is such a reactive gas that it shouldn't be in our atmosphere at all. Oxygen is a key gas we hope to find on exoplanets.
We are already learning so much about hot giant exoplanets. We have learned about bizarre planetary orbits and planets that are too large to be explained. We have learned about huge day-night temperature differences. We have identified molecules on exoplanets. We have learned about the vertical temperature structure of atmospheres. The same kinds of things can be learned about Earth-like planets when they are detected in the future.
And if intelligent life doesn't need the conditions we know are needed to support our carbon based forms, then life could be a whole lot more common.
Gbaji wrote:
I said that if they choose to come here, it would almost certainly be because we are here, not because we happen to be sitting on some resources they want. So yeah. If they come here for us, they came here for us...
I disagree. We're not going to be able to offer much resistance to an FTL capable race, so our existence here might not factor in to their thoughts at all. Since it stands to reason, again, that any FTL capable races would have vastly more powerful sensory equipment than anything we can imagine, then unless "life" is the resource (Think something akin to "The Collectors" in Mass Effect) they could come here for any resource they wanted. They could be benevolent, which would be swell, but evolution kind of dictates "survival of the fittest", which we wouldn't be to an FTL capable race.
Gbaji wrote:
There would be no reason for such a species to choose to come to our system. Assuming it is just about physical resources and ignoring any ethical considerations at all, it would make more sense to pick an uninhabited star system. The proposed method of travel does not allow for us just happening to be along a path they're traveling, and there's no way our presence could make their operations more efficient, so why go here?
They detect water, need it, warp here, & take it. Sure, the "liberal" aliens might ***** about wiping out all life on a planet to get the water, but if they need it bad enough (or it's worth enough space rupees) they'll just take it. Clarke's third law, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", pretty much guarantees a win for a FTL capable race with the sensory technology needed to "see" that there's water here.
Gbaji wrote:
Oh. I can come up with lots of reasons why an advanced alien species might come to visit us, either for beneficial or harmful ends. But the one that Hawking was talking about isn't one of them. It was just jarring to me because there are so many more rational explanations for why this might happen that his just seemed to have been incredibly poorly thought out.
You can disagree with Hawkings, pretty much "the" expert this planet has on the universe, if you choose too. But to call his reasoning "poorly thought out" is a new low even for you, considering the genius does pretty much nothing
BUT think about these things all day every day, given his "handicap".
Edited, Apr 29th 2010 1:55am by Omegavegeta