>For example, if a far advanced civilization was out there, merely observing us while they knew they had the cure to our dying loved ones and general suffering on this planet, would we not find the only ethical solution to provide said cure?

I mean, we already do that to an extent. There are "wild" tribes living in remote areas of the planet and surely they must suffer from illnesses which we have cures for, but in the name of leaving them alone we don't provide them with anything.

Actually, this is not true. It's a well-known problem that "uncontacted tribes" actually suffer from continual outside influence, with people living near them actively trying to "civilize" them, or people with zero consideration for the law committing crimes on or near the lands occupied by the tribes, in some cases attacking and killing the tribespeople to accomplish their goals. For example "uncontacted" tribes in the Amazon have actually recently initiated contact with local government officials to ask for help with cartel enforcers that killed members of their tribes to make room for their grow / transport operations. And in another example, the "uncontacted" Sentinelese tribe in the North Sentinel Islands has actually been trading with local fishermen for years, but it was not widely known because contacting the tribe is against the law. It was only recently revealed to be the case after that stupid American missionary went on his quest to "teach the tribe about Jesus" ("civilize them") and was killed on the beach, and the police were investigating ways to retrieve his corpse.

We absolutely do not "leave them alone". Or at least -- in the grandest tradition of human hypocrisy -- we just all agree to say we leave them alone if anyone asks, and just sort of pretend like our laws are foolproof solutions to things like preventing interference with "uncontacted" tribes, or stopping drug addiction, or preventing gun violence, or what have you.

Uh, no. In the name of leaving them alone we don't bring disease and destruction to their culture and community.

Do you think we could interact with them in a beneficial way without bringing disease or drastically changing their way of life?

Ethics and moralities of actually doing so aside for two moments...

1) I'm trying to imagine a sterilized delivery system of treatments that such tribes would be able to understand enough to use.

2) Similar to "how do we communicate to the deep future not to enter nuclear waste storage facilities", how do we communicate to such people when not only is there a language barrier but also a gap of hundreds [thousands?] of technological &c progress as well.

Giving them gifts from the gods (i.e. packages without contact) would only make them reliant on us and could have unknown effects on their culture, increasing (if they have it) human sacrifice in times of illness, for example.

That seems a rather different situation : we are not a difference species, and this "no contact initiative from our part" policy include consideration on our own civilization defects.

That doesn't discard the interest of the point, but that brings a call for more specific nuances depending on civilization discrepancies.

> Multiple hominid species on Earth have had a technology gap on an unfathomable timescale. Indeed, the Denisovans developed stone tools tens of thousands of years before our own species.

Nonsense. Hominin toolmaking and tool use go back more than 2 million years, long before the last common ancestor of humans and the Neanderthal/Denisovan branch. About all we can say about Denisovan tool use is that their technology, circa 100,000 or 150,000 years ago, was roughly the same as contemporary Neanderthal and human technology.

I learned yesterday that the Koala population is projected to go extinct in 15 years because a highly virulent strand of chlamydia has rendered them infertile. Scientist are researching a cure for them.

So yeah, I guess incomprehensibly advanced technological interjection isn't unprecedented.

> But I wonder - had things been not much different, might we be cohabiting with an intelligent species, one perhaps tens of thousands of years ahead of us? Aliens on our own planet?

I really loved your post especially that paragraph, which could easily spawn a dozen sci-fi stories or conspiracy theories.

Thanks, that really means a lot. This really captures my imagination and it’s hard to put into words.

You've described the situation from 1-2 million years ago. Homo sapiens were not the only intelligent species, there were numerous hominid species at various points. We interbred, killed, dominated, and out-competed these species, to their ruin. I don't fancy meeting another, slightly more capable version of ourselves, as that would likely lead to the same outcome for us.

> the Denisovans developed stone tools tens of thousands of years before our own species

I wonder if it's possible that stone tools were developed only once by some early species and then just passed down through generations? What do we really know about those times?

Stone tools are very arkeological friendly, because they don't rot and because they are not reused later (like iron tools or marble blocks). So the story of stone tools is well documented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_tool

A few of our ancestor species used the exact same model of stone hand tool (it's like a small axe) for a million years! It was even inherited between a few species.

Something like 1.5 million years ago, someone had the brilliant idea of improving it. It was another of our ancestor species. (I think that Denisovans branched before this but IANAA.) After that there are a few (slow) step of progressing.

---

You may be interested to read about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture Some theory says that they were the first human to reach America. Other theories says that humans had already come to America but they had older stone technology and the Clovis people just brought the new stone technology that was much better. I can't find a clear report, and I'm not sure if there is a clear evidence of both theories. It's easier to track the use of the new arrow heads than track the users.

> observing us while they knew they had the cure to our dying loved ones

Good! I, for one, appreciate selection pressure from our insect overlords, it's the only way Darwinism works. Seriously, science is serious business, and I can't stand namby-pambyism. We are supposed to die, it's narcissistic to believe you and yours are more important than the species.

it's healthy for forest fires to periodically burn out the accumulated brush and revitalize the ecosystem.

I disagree with just about everything you said. The ecosystem is worthless without an intelligence to experience it. For self-aware species, death is a disease despite the fact that it maintains a consistent ecosystem. As a self-aware being, we all should have the right to live and die on our own terms.

I doubt you would speak as you did if were, in fact, next to a loved one on their death bed.

But then again, this is all a matter of opinion. We're all entitled to our right answers :)

I think you both have some good points.

Escaping death and disease with technology is a slippery slope. If that technology disappears or is unavailable, it puts a species in potential peril. Selection pressure keeps the fitness of the gene pool resilient, although at a cost to many individuals. This is relevant to all species, human and otherwise.

> Would we even realize their sentience

(Minor nitpick, but I think you meant "sapience" rather than "sentience." Sentience is something that essentially all animals on this planet have, and just means the ability to experience sensations. Sapience appears to be unique to humans (and perhaps a small number of animal species) and refers to the ability to reason.)

> while they knew they had the cure ... would we not find the only ethical solution

(while we are minor nitpicking, they have the cure, our view of their ethics might not be the same as their view of theirs)

Thanks!

We know elephants grieve for lost family members. We probably have the tools to cure many diseases they experience in the wild but yet we do not.

We have started to apply serious medical care to dogs and cats though. I can see perhaps over the longer term as material abundance increases we would actively setup "nature hospitals".

> Are we morally obligated to not cut the nip of societal development in the bud for these species? And if this species suffers in developing and advancing, are we obligated to ease and accelerate their development?

Perhaps we can start by preventing their extinction by stopping the destruction of of their natural habitat.

Your comment reminds me a little bit of Ted Chiang's short story: http://nautil.us/issue/75/story/the-great-silence

Truly a captivating thought. Though I must point out that stone tool technology has existed for over 3 million years. Doesn't take away from the questions you pose, however.

Is it ethical to meddle?

Look at how we don't expose isolated tribes in Brazil to civilization.

If we found a struggling intelligent alien species on a planet somewhere, would we interfere? Looking at how we handle the issue even within our own species, possibly not.

>Are we morally obligated to not cut the nip of societal development in the bud for these species?

That's a question that is more of a decision.

The universe doesn't care either way, and wouldn't care if tomorrow a comet extinguished life on Earth entirely.

there are some theories about humans been the apex of physical evolution for things like body function, intelligence, memory, etc. So in other environments, human-like animals would also appear at some point. Later we have what we are creating now, a world not limited to our own physical limits. A digital/virtual and why not, spiritual world.

> I wonder what it must be like, to cohabit with a different species that is effectively your equal with respect to self-awareness/sentience, even if they are not your equal with respect to technology.

It sounds intriguing but unfortunately, I think that history teaches us that in reality we'd eventually end up with the problems of racism, but at a whole new level.

In many cases I guess one genocide the other specie. They represent too much of an existential threat before both of those species reach rationality and altruism as constitutional finalities.