So while I agree that the most likely outcome of a technologically more advanced alien civilization encountering us would be a pretty nasty one ... there's a remote possibility that we would instead be a curiousity to them and that they might treat us as we now treat the Sentinelese.
Note: there has been contact between the Sentinelese and the outside world, some peaceful (I found something about Indian expeditions in the early 90s) some a little less so (the British kidnapping six islanders). But it didn't result in their extinction or being colonized, and they remain isolated.
If I was religious I'd have interpreted it as God protecting me, like in the tales of bibles stopping bullets.
But if it was in his shirt pocket, then yeah that could indeed be interpreted the other way round!
Who is anyone to invade another's life, uninvited, and tell them how they're living wrong?
Would their subjective life experience really be better if they were chasing the next iPhone, pickup truck, opium den, bonus, or sexcapade?
I don't think this holds true when one side is far superior to the other, of a different species, and doesn't really require the same resources as the inferior species.
Example: I'm not out to destroy the squirrels in my woods, even though occasionally they do something that inconveniences me, because they are not a threat and I want nothing of their acorn or walnut resources.
They can be very entertaining to watch however.
For instance, bees. We don't want to hurt bees. But we've certainly done a lot of stuff that's been harmful to bee populations.
There are many other species that are endangered because of humans and their changing of the environment, too.
But I don't think your example has any parallels too the parent discussion.
Unless an alien species is currently modifing the earth's atmosphere without our knowledge. It seems pretty apparent that we humans are the ones doing the modification.
My guess is that an extraterrestrial intelligence investigating the Earth would be very stealthy, for two reasons: firstly because, like scientists, they want to observe life on Earth without disturbing it, and secondly because they will naturally suspect that other extraterrestrial intelligences are also lurking around the Earth and will also want to observe those, if possible, and will understand that they'll have a better chance of spotting those other extraterrestrial intelligences if those other extraterrestrial intelligences don't spot them first and take evasive action.
So my conclusion from all this is that it's quite plausible that multiple extraterrestrial intelligences are already lurking around the Earth, with their probes disguised as tiny insects, for example, and probably they are not all aware of each other's presence.
They may be observing you now!
This assumes resource competition, which isn't a guarantee. Colonialism was driven by the need for open markets, resources, and vanity satisfaction from a declining class of European elites.
It's very likely that we don't have anything that a technologically advanced civilization would actually need. In this case, the situation would be more akin to Amazon coexisting with brick and mortar coffee shops, and less like Netflix competing with video rental shops.
What about enslavement? Here Hawkings / Neil deGrasse Tyson make another interesting point: any civilization which could peacefully colonize a galaxy is not the kind of civilization that would colonize the galaxy at all. The very act of wanting to colonize self-selects for violence/exploitation.
> It's very likely that we don't have anything that a technologically advanced civilization would actually need. In this case, the situation would be more akin to Amazon coexisting with brick and mortar coffee shops, and less like Netflix competing with video rental shops.
Surely any civilization advanced enough to master interstellar travel would be better than we are at gathering intelligence and predicting humanity’s next move, which for all we know might threaten their interests.
If extraterrestrials are silently monitoring humans, isn’t it more likely to be for intelligence gathering purposes than for altruistic reasons? If the monitoring were intended to be altruistic, where’s the proof of the altruism?
It’s much more likely that we just don’t have anything they want.
> any civilization which could peacefully colonize a galaxy is not the kind of civilization that would colonize the galaxy at all. The very act of wanting to colonize self-selects for violence/exploitation.
This isn't necessarily true. Colonizing is simply the act of moving to a different piece of land. Violence and exploitation occurs when colonists are engaged in resource competition. It's not hard to imagine that, given high enough levels of technological development and the overall size of the universe, a colonizing civilisation can pre-select and coexist with existing occupants.
To put it another way, two hundred years ago, if I wanted to move a bunch of Europeans to what are now Addis Ababa or Bangkok, I would have to "colonize" the area. Now, all I would have to do is buy (multiple) apartments, or a plot of land or two and build a gated retirement community.
Why? The Gulf War showed that a gap of ~eleven years of advancement was enough to lead to arguably the largest one-sided victory in the history of warfare. There is no need for an advanced civilisation to silently monitor us for nefarious purposes. All they have to do is show up.
> If the monitoring were intended to be altruistic, where’s the proof of the altruism?
If we are being monitored, the fact that we're not aware of it is likely sufficient proof that their intentions aren't inherently malicious. Whether or not this means that their intentions are altruistic is another argument.
However, if we are in fact being monitored, it's far more likely that we're supporting a bunch of intergalactic Ph.D. theses - and maybe a documentary or two - than putting ourselves in the sights of some malevolent conquering race.
This is not totally correct, if you assume they have to survive countless conflicts (in which such advanced technology, it means aggressive ones would destroy themselves), you may end up with extraordinarily peaceful species.
But resources are abundant in space, and there's nothing that can be found on Earth (barring life, specifically) that can't be found in orders of magnitude greater quantities elsewhere. It's like our entire solar system is a buffet but we're the only dish with flies buzzing it. If you're looking for a meal, you wouldn't even bother with that.
Weren't the Vikings, later Normen, far less advanced than the places they raided? They absorbed the technology, the land and culture and used it to conquer and form what is present-day England.
Maybe we'll beat the aliens with our savagery.
There would be no way for humans to win.
If so, good point.
Any hypothetical which places a group of extraterrestrials capable of interstellar travel on Earth is fundamentally a catastrophe. It’s a lot like discussing an imminent asteroidal impact.
There is absolutely no reason to believe any human-extraterrestrial contact would end well for humanity. If anything, I’d expect it to be like playing a chess game against an AGI where the loser gets “terminated”.
Anyway, the basic human need to expediently file away all low likelihood ideas into the deep recesses of the brain, never to be examined; the proliferation of general con artistry rooted in financial desperation; and the immense social stigma attached to the pursuit keep people from contemplating the potential of extraterrestrial intelligence. None of those are an especially good reason.