Thread

1. I_dream_of_Geni · 1790469671 · focus · HN ↗

   OK... Serious question here: we find "life" (algae?) on one of Saturn's moons or one of Jupiter's moons. So, we spend ~$50 Billion (arguably much more) and find "life". So? Why is this important to people? There isn't one chance in (place your own word here) that we can do anything about it or even send humans there. Seriously want to know what people really think...

   1. dzink · 1790472330 · focus · HN ↗

      Because of statistics. If we can find life, potentially started independently or pollinated in a couple of planets close to each-other, then life is everywhere and we may be in a dark forest of intelligent or hidden native predatory beings waiting to wipe us out if we squeak or show up elsewhere. If it's not as frequent, then we can keep exploring to look for it and more human-habitable spots.

      1. rafram · 1790473325 · focus · HN ↗

         I have a premonition that even if extraterrestrial life is discovered, and even if intelligent, hostile extraterrestrial life is somehow discovered, humans are not going to leave it alone.

         After all, everyone involved can just say it's inevitable! If we don't do it, someone else will.

         1. nkrisc · 1790507002 · focus · HN ↗

            It’s the same, lame, self-fulfilling excuse that gets used for every bad thing someone does dressed up as a necessary thing.

            You can see it right now with AI barreling forward. If we don’t develop it, someone else will, so we will ensuring it happens.

            Of course we can never prove or disprove their claim of “someone else will” because they went ahead and did it.

            1. trimethylpurine · 1790524127 · focus · HN ↗

               You can't prove that walking through walls is impossible but you are an idiot if you keep trying. It hurts. That's called inductive reasoning.

               We've never seen a case where some government in some country doesn't work as hard as possible to ensure that they have the biggest possible weapon. So you should believe someone is doing that. (Point in fact, we know of several governments currently trying to achieve nuclear, aerial, and AI superiority today.)

               You can check out why scientists use this same philosophy in modern discovery and belief systems by catching up on the subject of "the philosophy of science." You'll find some 5,000 years of scientific debate and conclusions that roughly culminate in the above system of belief.

               1. nico · 1790527057 · focus · HN ↗

                  In the case of weapons development, it's not about whether someone will do it or not. It's about whether that is a good reason/excuse to then do it yourself

                  So, if someone else is going to develop something very harmful, is the best solution to develop something equally or more harmful? Or are there maybe other better solutions to this problem?

                  1. trimethylpurine · 1790528628 · focus · HN ↗

                     There might be, but we've never seen one. The culture with the lesser weapons is subjected to inferior quality of life when compared to the oppressing culture in all cases in history.

                     So, it might be worth entertaining whether you can convince everyone in your culture to be subservient?

                     Here again, historically that's never happened, so it's not worth believing. And that's just to check if there's a better solution. You might arrive at an even worse outcome.

                     Revolutions require even bigger weapons, despite sometimes having better long term outcomes. How many people have to die to test our theory?

                     Genghis Khan created centuries of peace horrifically with bigger guns. The Ottoman Turks similarly did. The US, now. And many more cases that we know of. All of these examples coincidentally allowed multiculturalism, and even more, they enforced it as a matter of law. Just as an interesting side point.

                     Life is terrible in all cases in history where it's not clear who has the biggest guns. That's always been the demarcation of the beginning of a new regime at the cost of millions of lives.

                     Revolutions are horrible. That's what we know for sure.

                     1. rsynnott · 1790543409 · focus · HN ↗

                        Huh? There have been lots of extremely nasty things which there has been implicit or explicit international agreement not to develop and/or deploy, and this has largely held. Weaponised nerve agents, most biological weapons, salted nuclear weapons (the doomsday machine from Doctor Strangelove, essentially), extremely large nuclear weapons...

                        1. trimethylpurine · 1790551542 · focus · HN ↗

                           Agreement? Never happened.

                           Sadam Hussein? IRGC? United States?

                           When?

                           It's never happened. The US itself doesn't abide by Geneva convention. Let alone other UN members.

                           You're living in pretense, I'm sorry to point out.

                           The world is run by terrorists. The only question is which terror group you want to retain power.

                           Personally, I like the multiculturalism that the US champions, and the Turks used to, and the Khan dynasty used to, and Persia used to. And only because it's the most likely recipe for the longest track record for peace.

                           Like it or not, history doesn't agree with your optimism as much as you and I wish it did.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.