posted by lukep:
This makes the logical error that a culture technologically capable of large-scale interstellar travel has any need of some planet-bound resource. That is one of the main factors to which I am alluding when I mention the economic ramifications of serious interstellar travel -- the ability to harness, store and manage the energy alone would imply a general level of technology so advanced that the idea of having to take over earth for, say, our water, is just ridiculous.
I will concede that exotic cuisine/sport hunting might make us marginally more interesting to an interstellar race.
Total nonsense. The only leap a human has over a well-designed machine is thought. The very nature of slavery obviates the value of creativity, and it is a safe assumption that most races that get around to developing intelligent, creative machines tend to go extinct shortly thereafter. So -- like the complexities of binding hydrogen and oxygen, the complexities of developing affordable manual labour that will never question its purpose, revolt, get the plague etc. are probably something already covered in the course of developing the tech required for interstellar colonisation.
See above comments.
Again, the staggering physics and technology involved in getting off the planet in the first place all but guarantee that the ability to change the planet itself is possible. Or terraform a new one, or even create one a la a Dyson Sphere.
In a culture with presumptive control of matter down to the subatomic level, the notion of scarcity is almost laughable. One of the few points in which the Star Trek mythos makes any sense.
This is true. But take a look at us, and ask yourself honestly: would you want to make contact with this clusterfuck of a species? We have a long way to go before we are worth the hassle, in my opinion.
I'm not just saying that they'll ignore us -- sport hunters and hippies aside -- I'm saying that, looking at the tech and cultural shifts involved, the closer a society gets to actually being able to pull off practical interstellar travel, the less the incentive to actually do so becomes. Eventually the only reason to do it at all is "just because." Many of the drivers which we anthropomorphically ascribe to theoretical alien cultures -- economic scarcity, a warlord nature, etc. -- simply are extremely unlikely to apply to such a culture.
Frank
This makes the logical error that a culture technologically capable of large-scale interstellar travel has any need of some planet-bound resource. That is one of the main factors to which I am alluding when I mention the economic ramifications of serious interstellar travel -- the ability to harness, store and manage the energy alone would imply a general level of technology so advanced that the idea of having to take over earth for, say, our water, is just ridiculous.
I will concede that exotic cuisine/sport hunting might make us marginally more interesting to an interstellar race.
Total nonsense. The only leap a human has over a well-designed machine is thought. The very nature of slavery obviates the value of creativity, and it is a safe assumption that most races that get around to developing intelligent, creative machines tend to go extinct shortly thereafter. So -- like the complexities of binding hydrogen and oxygen, the complexities of developing affordable manual labour that will never question its purpose, revolt, get the plague etc. are probably something already covered in the course of developing the tech required for interstellar colonisation.
See above comments.
Again, the staggering physics and technology involved in getting off the planet in the first place all but guarantee that the ability to change the planet itself is possible. Or terraform a new one, or even create one a la a Dyson Sphere.
In a culture with presumptive control of matter down to the subatomic level, the notion of scarcity is almost laughable. One of the few points in which the Star Trek mythos makes any sense.
This is true. But take a look at us, and ask yourself honestly: would you want to make contact with this clusterfuck of a species? We have a long way to go before we are worth the hassle, in my opinion.
I'm not just saying that they'll ignore us -- sport hunters and hippies aside -- I'm saying that, looking at the tech and cultural shifts involved, the closer a society gets to actually being able to pull off practical interstellar travel, the less the incentive to actually do so becomes. Eventually the only reason to do it at all is "just because." Many of the drivers which we anthropomorphically ascribe to theoretical alien cultures -- economic scarcity, a warlord nature, etc. -- simply are extremely unlikely to apply to such a culture.
Frank
