[motohagiography]

Fun topic because the question of under what conditions would we as humans would contact another less advanced civilization in space opens up some pretty interesting but simple criteria.

We would need for that civilization to not be a danger to us, not only from a technology angle, but from an ontological perspective. When you look at how insane other creatures in nature are and the biological economics of their survival, we wouldn't adopt them into our own societies, and the ones we do are cats and dogs and other pets. This is how much we can trust another being we can only share a small part of our experience with by keeping them confined or on leashes. We probably don't want rich aliens to breed us in captivity and buy us as pets for their kids to ride. So there's a bar we would need to meet to not become that.

The question I have would be, what would we as a species need to demonstrate to be allowed "off leash," in a community of other spacefaring civilizations? What consistent understanding would each person as a random human need to have to be able to be relied upon to interact safely with a spacefaring being?

What would we equip a civilization with to evolve with those tools before arranging to meet them without destroying the equillibrium of their societies as they compete for our favour and become dependent on us? Reciprocity of respect for life and the ability to apprehend some universal shared truth seems like the only thing that would separate an animal from another conscious being capable of reason.

I would wonder what that prerequisites or criteria for us as humans encountering a new civilization would be.

[sammalloy]

> The question I have would be, what would we as a species need to demonstrate to be allowed "off leash," in a community of other spacefaring civilizations? What consistent understanding would each person as a random human need to have to be able to be relied upon to interact safely with a spacefaring being?

I think that Martin Luther King, Jr. answered this question in 1967:

> Modern man suffers from a kind of poverty of the spirit, which stands in glaring contrast to his scientific and technological abundance. We've learned to fly the air like birds, we've learned to swim the seas like fish. And yet we haven't learned to walk the earth like brothers and sisters.

[motohagiography]

It's almost as though every person already has the tools and a manual, and we each have the individual choice whether to become it or not. :)

[sammalloy]

I agree, but there are also strong societal forces at work keeping us divided and in constant conflict. I think it’s really hard for most people to navigate through this morass, and they either become bogged down in it or end up on one side of the opposing division. The trick is not to give in to one side or the other and to choose equanimity.

[prox]

Honestly? Not to be such savages. With which I mean is that we are hilariously incompetent when it comes to basic rights, freedoms and most of all structuring society.

If we worked together in true unison, we have enough riches/resources to feed, clothe and give a home to anyone who needs it. Just for a moment imagine if the military budgets didn’t need to be spend.

Note I am not advocating any ideology or political structure here, but just the basic observation that we are indeed underdeveloped savages.

[sammalloy]

> we are indeed underdeveloped savages

We really are. I’ve been trying to improve myself, and I’ve been practicing a form of cultivating metta. If anyone reading this wants to experiment with their mind, this is a truly difficult practice. The next time someone wrongs you or hurts you, intentionally or unwittingly, try to show some compassion and understanding for them. That act goes against our very nature, and undermines our savagery at a very deep level. I did this last week to someone who accidentally wronged me at work, and it was an amazing experience. My anger completely disappeared and I felt terrible for this person once I began to understand what was going on inside their mind. I think that this and other practices hold the key to our uplift.

[prox]

Metta is very good, and I hope we all find this way of seeing! I honestly feel that if we all practiced it, wars would cease to exist. It’s not important to be right or wrong, it’s important to feel reciprocated and seen as a human being. It’s an attitude we could all benefit from and integrate in our culture.

[euroderf]

A third rate civilization on a backwater spiral arm. It is what it is.

[grishka]

One thing that sets humans and animals apart is language. The ability to transfer abstract thoughts and ideas between individuals.

Would you adopt an alien creature capable of reasoning and and expressing its thoughts as a pet? Or would you consider that enslavement?

[adrianN]

It's all a matter of degrees. My cat certainly is able to communicate with me and there are smarter animals around that we keep in captivity (e.g. dolphins).

[grishka]

There is a clear line between "the cat says meow and you figure out what it wants based on the context" and "someone thinks something and says it out loud such that you now have the same thought". It's this process of transfer of abstract thoughts between people, and later the ability to preserve those thoughts on paper, that made our civilization possible.

[adrianN]

So were is the line? Is an Ape using sign language on our side of the line, or on the cat's side? At what age does a child cross the line?

[grishka]

On the cat's side. They don't use it to represent abstract ideas.

I can describe to you something you've never seen and have no idea about, yet you'll be able to imagine it and reason about it from my description alone. Apes or dolphins or crows or dogs or other animals we consider smart can't do that. If they could do it, they'd have their own civilization by now. It's a uniquely human trait among all life forms we're aware of.