[Gene_Parmesan]

I find this common assumption that non-Earth lifeforms will automagically have found ways to break the laws of physics curious. Given the age of universe, it's highly likely that most other lifeforms will have developed within a rounding error of us, on geological time scales.

And as for ETs being peaceful zen wizards, the fundamental problem of resource scarcity would seem to be universally applicable. It's this resource scarcity that causes species which are good at competing to develop. So it seems likely that any species intelligent enough to become technologically advanced would have a history of belligerence similar to ours.

Thinking aspirationally about what sort of species we should strive to be is great. But I find the belief that, across the universe, humans are specially anti-progress to be a little silly. The laws of physics are universal.

[revolvingocelot]

I find the framing "break the laws of physics" to be curious. Does that mean the Newtonian laws of physics, which are enough to launch rockets but not enough to create the GPS network? General relativity is enough to create the GPS network, but not travel faster than light or connect two points in space without the intervening distance or whatever.

It's fallacious to presume that we -- or any other species -- will automagically find ways to beat the lightspeed barrier, but it's also hubris to presume that our current understanding is the most "correct" that it can be. Could there be some new sea change in our understanding of the world, that allows for things general relativity considers impossible or incoherent?

My understanding of the "peaceful zen wizards" trope was that if you've got the technology to cross the unimaginably big [0] gulfs between stars, let alone the gulfs between inhabited stars, you concomitantly no longer want for resources or territory in any way that civilizations of our Kardashev type [1] understand them. What's the point of belligerence, culturally, [2] at that point? And if you do want territory and mining and extraction and whatever, why not use a combinatorial explosion of Von Neumann machines? The only reason to send actual people would be to say hello to the locals and look around.

[0] cf. Douglas Adams' intro to THGttG

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

[2] I acknowledge that humans are genetically belligerent, but we can just choose not to be, especially in conditions of plenty. The fight is close, but culture ultimately beats genetics. I present, by way of example, the condom.

[PeterisP]

Something that's a rounding error on geological time scales is immense in the time scale of technological development.

The development of life took a few billion years to get to where we are now, so if for some otherwise equivalent civilization that highly random process took 0.1% faster or slower, then that makes for multiple million years of difference in development.

If we encounter another civilization, then it would be a wildly implausible coincidence if they happened to be close to us in technological level - say, just a thousand years or so; a more advanced civilization would be much more advanced - and we can see just how much things change in just a few centuries of technological development.

[idiotsecant]

It's also pretty likely that any sufficiently belligerent species with access to technology at our level or greater will use that technology to destroy themselves in exactly those kind of resource conflicts, in which case the filter works in the direction opposite you claim here - only species capable of suppressing belligerence are able to make it to the stars.