jcr@mitre-bedford (06/26/85)
From: jcr@Mitre-Bedford > From: looking!brad@topaz.arpa (Brad Templeton) > > There's only one commodity a highly advanced race > would travel light-years to take by force, and that's slaves. It > certainly isn't water. I have to disagree. 1) If you're running out of water, and you don't have the resources to reclaim it or manufacture it, then you've only one option open to you: go get some more! And believe me, you'll go whatever distance it takes to get it! 2) Are slaves even very valuable to "a highly advanced race"? I mean, at some point machine labor becomes cheaper and more efficient than human labor; once a race has passed this point, human slaves have little value. But I guess one could argue that the above refers only to physical labor, and thus human slaves might still have value for other types of labor. (What a nightmare: aliens kidnap the entire human race and make accountants of us all!) But I agree with your suggestions about improving "V." I too was disappointed when the visitors turned out to be reptiles come to eat us -- how corny! Making them human-relatives come to make us slaves would have been much less ridiculous, and much more interesting. Regards, -- Jeff Rogers jcr@Mitre-Bedford.ARPA
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (06/28/85)
In article <2389@topaz.ARPA> you write: >From: jcr@Mitre-Bedford >> From: looking!brad@topaz.arpa (Brad Templeton) >> There's only one commodity a highly advanced race >> would travel light-years to take by force, and that's slaves. It >> certainly isn't water. > >I have to disagree. > >1) If you're running out of water, and you don't have the resources >to reclaim it or manufacture it, then you've only one option open to >you: go get some more! And believe me, you'll go whatever distance it >takes to get it! The problem is that there are *much* easier ways to get water. As an obvious example, there is considerably more water in the rings and moons of Saturn than on the surface of the Earth. It's frozen, but that hardly matters. Even more directly, water is made from hydrogen and oxygen, which are two of the most common elements in the universe. It takes a lot less energy to make water than it does to cross interstellar space.
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (07/02/85)
In article <467@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: > >Even more directly, water is made from hydrogen and oxygen, which are two >of the most common elements in the universe. It takes a lot less energy >to make water than it does to cross interstellar space. I'd like to see some test results to back that statement up. -- - joel "vo" plutchak {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster "Take what I say in a different way and it's easy to say that this is all confusion."
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (07/02/85)
> From: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) > > >In article <467@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: > > >Even more directly, water is made from hydrogen and oxygen, which are two > >of the most common elements in the universe. It takes a lot less energy > >to make water than it does to cross interstellar space. > > I'd like to see some test results to back that statement up. Well, let me put it this way: given that (from what I can tell) the aliens in ``V'' got here by ``conventional'' spaceship, it would take a lot less energy to grab water ice from anywhere else in our solar system than a deep gravity well (e.g., Earth). If you wish to propose a transportation mechanism that works better in gravity wells, fine, but V sure didn't. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 4251) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@maryland
psc@lzwi.UUCP (Paul S. R. Chisholm) (07/08/85)
< I can use my magic to change the color to red -- but I don't do windows. > In article <1255@uwmacc.UUCP>, oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) writes: > In article <467@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: > > > >Even more directly, water is made from hydrogen and oxygen, which are two > >of the most common elements in the universe. It takes a lot less energy > >to make water than it does to cross interstellar space. > > I'd like to see some test results to back that statement up. > -- > - joel "vo" plutchak {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster How 'bout a thought experiment? Unless you want to carry a lot of fissionables with you, there are all sorts of reasons to carry a really hefty fusion reactor with you. For one thing, it can be made to be a simple, effective (slower than light) interstellar drive (accelerate hydrogen in the opposite of the direction you want to accellerate in.) (As Larry Niven pointed out in one of his Known Space stories, it also makes a nifty weapon. See also Joan D. Vinge's THE OUTCASTS OF HEAVEN BELT.) The fuel for a fusion reactor is lots of hydrogen (specifically, deuterons, or hydrogen-2). The way we get that now is electrolysis of water. It can be collected from the solar wind (I think), or from Jupiter's atmosphere. Oxygen? We could spare a little from our own atomosphere. If not, the Moon is absolutely lousy with the stuff (one of the Apollo samples was forty percent oxygen). It's a waste gas, there's so much of it. All of this stuff is readily available in our own solar system. So is water; *clean* water may be in short supply, but dirty water plus enough energy yields chemically pure water (electrolysis again). Not counting the rings of Saturn; see Asimov's "The Martian Way", scaling down the size of the particles in the rings drastically. Not at all by the way: Walter Tevis had read "The Martian Way" before he wrote his novel, THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH. Blame it on the screen- writer of the novel with the same name, and a similar plot. -- -Paul S. R. Chisholm The above opinions are my own, {pegasus,vax135}!lzwi!psc not necessarily those of any {mtgzz,ihnp4}!lznv!psc telecommunications company. "It must be fast, and it must be red, and it must have windows."
JAFFE@RUTGERS.ARPA (07/08/85)
From: Susser.pasa@Xerox.ARPA What would an advanced race travel to another star to get? An answer to this question depends upon how advanced this race is. First case: assume that the race is just advanced enough to get to another star, but not very easily. This is just about where we earthlings are right now, or will be in a few years (this might be a topic for a separate discussion). What could we find in another star system that would be worth the voyage? We have plenty of material wealth in our own solar system. I doubt there is any substance, object or source of energy that would be worth the time and energy to make an interstellar voyage. It would almost always be easier to find or build something ourselves, certainly easier than fighting someone else for it. But there are some things that would be worth the trip - things like knowledge, planets to colonize, and friends. Second case: assume a race that can easily travel between the stars. Such a race would probably have a technology advanced enough that they could build or obtain anything they wanted, and probably more easily than they could take it from someone else. Again, all they could really want would be things like knowledge, planets to colonize, and friends. Brad Templeton writes: >You bet they would come for slaves. Just because we think we are >advanced morally past the desire for slaves, doesn't mean other >races would follow the same track. > >Highly advanced technology can do much, but it never replaces >personal service. (Of course, if you can make an android with a >turing-test AI program then there is an argument that this is a >living being and should not be enslaved, too) > >At any rate, until you have perfect AI, nothing can match a slave as >the ultimate luxury. And with a cousin race they can even be used >for sexual purposes. Slaves are cheap - they can produce enough to >feed and house themselves and you can take all the rewards. Yes, >they would come for slaves. The question of slavery is not a moral one, but an economic one. And slavery just isn't worthwhile in an economically advanced society. Slaves are not cheap - they require a lot of maintenance, and have a lot of annoying habits and superfluous functions. And they never provide service equal to that of willing servants (organic or artificial). No one who could travel between stars could possibly have any material use for aliens as slaves. It's more likely that hostile aliens would want us to kill, torture, eat, use as larval hosts or whatever, but not to enslave. So when outsiders arrive on my front lawn, I won't worry, cause they're either gonna be friendly, or they're gonna eat my brain, and I can't do anything about that. -- Josh Susser <Susser.pasa@Xerox.arpa> "I always lie, and I'm always right." - BOB
royt@gitpyr.UUCP (Roy M. Turner) (07/09/85)
In article <1255@uwmacc.UUCP> oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious oyster) writes: >In article <467@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: >> >>Even more directly, water is made from hydrogen and oxygen, which are two >>of the most common elements in the universe. It takes a lot less energy >>to make water than it does to cross interstellar space. > > I'd like to see some test results to back that statement up. I don't know about the statement of hydrogen and oxygen being the most common (hydrogen is *the* most common, but oxygen's quantity escapes me), but as to the statement of it taking less energy to make water than it does to cross interstellar space, here's a simple experiment for you: Take *any* quantity of a mixture of 2 volumes H2 and 1 volume O2 (at same pressure), put in same vessel. Introduce a spark. You (or more than likely your next of kin, since the explosion would be lots of fun) would end up with water in your tank, pure and simple. How's that for a great return on your investment! Roy -- The above opinions aren't necessarily those of etc, etc...but they should be!! Roy Turner (a transplanted Kentucky hillbilly) School of Information and Computer Science Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!royt
sas@leadsv.UUCP (Scott Stewart) (07/09/85)
In article <467@mmintl.UUCP>, franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: > > > In article <2389@topaz.ARPA> you write: > >From: jcr@Mitre-Bedford > >> From: looking!brad@topaz.arpa (Brad Templeton) > >> There's only one commodity a highly advanced race > >> would travel light-years to take by force, and that's slaves. It > >> certainly isn't water. > > > >I have to disagree. > > > >1) If you're running out of water, and you don't have the resources > >to reclaim it or manufacture it, then you've only one option open to > >you: go get some more! And believe me, you'll go whatever distance it > >takes to get it! > > The problem is that there are *much* easier ways to get water. As an > obvious example, there is considerably more water in the rings and moons > of Saturn than on the surface of the Earth. It's frozen, but that hardly > matters. > > Even more directly, water is made from hydrogen and oxygen, which are two > of the most common elements in the universe. It takes a lot less energy > to make water than it does to cross interstellar space. But we must remember that the Visitors wanted more than Earth's water. They were running out of food as well. Now maybe Earth was the nearest planet they could find that had food they liked. It's quite possible that we could have given them plenty of rats and bugs to take home and raise for food, but maybe we humans were a special delicacy for the very rich. Also, I remember Martin explaining to Donovan once that the Visitor's leader was similar to our Hitler. Neither needed a war for their society to survive, but wanted the glory of conquest. Therefore the Leader didn't care about a war, or the cost of a war. He was power hungry. I too liked the first mini-series. I believe an article I read once said that _V_ was based on the Nazi of World War II. I saw this in the first mini-series clearly, the use of a group of people who could be a threat to the regime as scapegoats who must be destroyed, martial law, and the Youth Core to indoctrinate the youth of the society. And the use of lizards as the Visitors I think was used for shock. What creatures do we think of as most repulsive, (Reptiles) and what better way to make the need to defeat the Visitors more expedient, yet least likely for the population to believe. The first mini-series ended to soon for me, since nothing ahad been resolved. The second mini-series I still liked. We finally win over the evil lizards. Even though the end was hokey. Why couldn't Elizabeth just be a super intelectual. It seams completely feasible that she could have stopped the ship from self destructing by breaking the computer security system and deactivating the bomb, instead of the fancy hokus-pokus trick. After all, she had been on the mother ship for some time learning the computer, and was supposed to be very bright. The ending was dumb! Now comes the series. Why? The Visitors had been defeated. Why shouldn't they just cral home. The series was doomed from the start. How long can you keep an audience interested in a war when neither side gains any real headway. And how can a bunch of Earthlings with only automatic weopons stand up to all those lasers. In the mini-series, the resistance at least got hold of the Visitor's weopons and used them. But suddenly, they can't use lasers anymore. And what about the Visitor's voices? The one thing I liked about the whole thing in general was that you were never sure which of our heros might live through any particular battle. We get to know each member of the resistance, and then one or two get knocked of. Most shows, our heros never die, no matter what the odds are. Of course, our main heros always pull through, but even some of the secondary heros, and not the peripheral heros died, like Martin, Elias, and Elizabeth's Grandfather. Our heros weren't always one dimensional and some grew and changed. Relationships grew, were tested, and some blossomed. Even the bad guys had varying motives, from vegeance, to loyalty, to personel power. The bad guys spent about as much time fighting themseleves as they did us. And was Kyle's Dad a good or bad guy? Kyle and his father hated each other, yet loved each other, and we were able to see both facets of their relationship. I glad they found a good explanation for not being able to use the Red Dust anymore. Then we would really have a boring war. But the Earth's Eco-system, which helped to stop the lizards the first time, was their hope the second. Another use of the dust and Mankind might kill himself. I personally liked some assets of the entire series (mini-series and weakly), mostly the character's, except Elizabeth's hokey powers. But I feel the main flaw with the weakly series was the plotlines. Each weak we saw our conflict build for about 50 minutes and then get solved in five, leaving five for final resolve (counting commercial time) or else the conflict built up in about 15 minutes and the rest wast spent solving it. There just wasn't enough balance to conflict/resolve reatio. Too many hokey escapes and solutions. We were just to outclassed and had to relly on some mysterious magic mumbo-jumbo from Elizabeth, another alien friend, or lucky break. I think too much was going on in the story for a one hour TV show to handle. That's why the mini-series were more succesful. I hope the books would also be more succesful, but I've only read the first one so I can't say. Scott A. Stewart LMSC
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (07/11/85)
In article <549@gitpyr.UUCP> royt@gitpyr.UUCP (Roy M. Turner) writes: >In article <1255@uwmacc.UUCP> oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious oyster) writes: >>> >>>Even more directly, water is made from hydrogen and oxygen, which are two >>>of the most common elements in the universe. It takes a lot less energy >>>to make water than it does to cross interstellar space. >> >> I'd like to see some test results to back that statement up. > > [Desribes how to make water...] Yes, but I'd *still* like to see that interstellar space craft. -- - joel "vo" plutchak {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster "Take what I say in a different way and it's easy to say that this is all confusion."
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (07/12/85)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: What an advanced race would come far to get... Summary: Expires: References: <2389@topaz.ARPA> <467@mmintl.UUCP> <1255@uwmacc.UUCP> <549@gitpyr.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Followup-To: Distribution: na Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT. Keywords: reality oxygen In article <549@gitpyr.UUCP> royt@gitpyr.UUCP (Roy M. Turner) writes: > >I don't know about the statement of hydrogen and oxygen being the most common >(hydrogen is *the* most common, but oxygen's quantity escapes me), I didn't say hydrogen and oxygen were the two most common elements, just among the most common. As you say, hydrogen is the most common; next is helium. After that I am less sure, but I think carbon is third and oxygen fourth. Neon, silicon, and iron are somewhere up there, too. To unchange the subject (change it back to what it was), I think there is one thing which stands out above all others as to what an advanced race would come far to get -- living space. There are two aspects to this. First, population growth. If we assume this race has a 1% annual growth rate, their population will double every 70 years. There are (as a quick estimate) about 10 to the 10th stars in the galaxy (this may be off by an order of magnitude either way). This is about 2 to the 23rd, so it would take this race about 1600 years to fill the galaxy. (Actually, they can't do it that fast, since we are assuming a speed of light limit.) Even assuming a growth rate 1000 times slower, and adding in another factor of ten as a fudge factor, it only takes 16 million years. This is still an incredibly short time, compared to the age of the galaxy. So, we must conclude, that if a race lets its population grow at all, it will soon fill up the galaxy. There is one other assumption here, that inter- stellar travel is possible; but that is what we were assuming to start with. (It is, by the way.) So why can't a species keep its population stable? Well, it can, of course. The question is, would it? Or more directly, why should it do so, as long as there is space to expand in? Any race is going to come out of a highly competitive evolutionary process like the one we came out of, which selects strongly for growth. (Yes, I know I'm making more assumptions here.) Some fraction of such races may be content to live on their one world, but I doubt very many would. The other aspect is simple survival. If your species lives only on one world, it is vulnerable to accidents. The planet may get hit by a large meteorite. The sun may blow up. There may be a nearby supernova. A species spread around the galaxy is, as a species, much less vulnerable to such things. I believe *any* advanced race will be concerned about its long term survival. The conclusion is that if there is an advanced race in the galaxy, we should expect them to drop by to colonize some time soon. More likely, since they aren't here, we will be dropping in there sometime soon. (By the way, the above ideas are not original. They derive from what is called the Fermi paradox, named after its orignator. The paradox goes as follows (highly abbreviated): based on arguments I'm sure you have all heard, there should be tens of thousands of advanced races in the galaxy (so maybe our estimates are way off, but still a dozen or so). But by the arguments above, they should then have spread out *throughout* the galaxy. So where are they?) Sorry this ran so long, but I thought it should be said.
jcr@mitre-bedford (07/17/85)
From: jcr@Mitre-Bedford
I just tuned in to SF-Lovers yesterday after several weeks away and was
rather surprised to see the discussion about What an Advanced Race Would
Come Far to Get still going on, albeit somewhat in a somewhat diluted form.
It also seemed to me that one of my earlier comments had been misinterpreted,
so I'd like to reiterate & clarify, if I may.
The discussion began when someone (I forget who) was criticizing the TV
series "V" and asserted something like the following:
"... there's only one thing that an advanced race would
cross interstellar space to get, and it certainly isn't
water. It's slaves."
Now there are really two assertions there, one about the value of water
to an advanced race, the other about the value of slaves to same.
I questioned both assertions, & still do, and it was these assertions I
wished to talk about, NOT the series "V". In response to the first assertion,
I wrote:
> 1) If you're running out of water, and you don't have the
> resources to reclaim it or manufacture it, then you've only one
> option open to you: go get some more! And believe me, you'll go
> whatever distance it takes to get it!
I still stand by this. What other choice does a race have, but extinction?
Note, however, that this still does not explain why someone would try to
get water from Earth as opposed to the rings of Saturn, once they've
arrived in our solar system. Saturn seems a much better source (though
contaminants might prove a problem; we'll hopefully see in the not-too-
distant future).
In questioning the assertion about slavery, I wrote something like:
Would slaves have any value at all to an advanced race?
At some point, machine labor becomes cheaper & more
efficient than slave labor, & once a race has passed
this point, what use would they have for slaves? Of
course one might argue that this applies only to physical
labor, & perhaps they'd have use for intelligent slaves
in other sorts of labor (nightmare scenario: aliens
kidnap the entire human race & make accountants of
us all!).
I have to stand by this too; I've yet to see a convincing line of reasoning
to the contrary. (Please remember that I'm not really discussing the TV
series "V" here, but rather the more general assertions I delineated above.)
Is anyone familiar with any novels or stories in which the taking of human
(or other sentient) slaves by an advanced race is treated with some degree
of depth? I can't recall any right off-hand. If so, what reasons are presented
for such activities?
An interesting possibility occurs to me. Imagine a race whose evolution has
been similar to that of Vulcans, from an emotional & violent past to a very
cold & rational present. But this race has gone even further; they've lost
emotion to the extent that they are now totally unable to create art. How-
ever, they can still appreciate it, and works of art from their distant past
are highly treasured. What would happen if such a race discovered humanity
as we currently are? Might they take us as slaves, forcing us to create
artworks for them? Would such a scheme work? Would the kidnapped humans
create great art? Perhaps so, if suffering contributes to great art. Or
would they turn out trash? Would the aliens know the difference? Has anyone
read anything like this?
Regards,
Jeff Rogers
jcr@Mitre-Bedford.ARPAthroopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (07/20/85)
> Is anyone familiar with any novels or stories in which the taking of human > (or other sentient) slaves by an advanced race is treated with some degree > of depth? I can't recall any right off-hand. If so, what reasons are presented > for such activities? Well, it wasn't *very* deep, bit I'll recommend Jack Lovejoy's "The Hunters". It is a novel about an alien invasion of the earth by superior aliens. They essentially convert earth into a game preserve, and use humans both as game and as "hunting dogs". I'll also recommend David Gerrold's The War with the Cthorr series. It is about an alien invasion which (a character conjectures) is due to the invader's planet becoming uninhabitable. I think that there are essentially two plausible categories for alien invasion of the earth. Recreation (or insanity) (a-la "The Hunters") and refuge from disaster (a-la The War with the Cthorr series). Earlier articles point out that we have no material wealth to offer an advanced technology, and slave labor seems ridiculously expensive to a technically advanced society. Living space might be a reason, but would require an unreasonably advanced transport technology to make it feasible and at the same time have the technology level low enough to preclude easier solutions to population pressure (such as Ringworlds). (The exception is when cost is no object, eg, the aliens need to escape from a supernova or the like.) The notion of humans as pets, game, or objects of sadism or fanaticism is, of course, old hat in the sf field, with innumerable examples. A somewhat less common related notion (that doesn't directly imply subjugation) is humankind as objects of tourism (which might be worse than subjugation :-). (Note that by "insanity" above, I simply mean behavior that is radically non-optimal for survival or efficency. (I realize that with this broad a classification of insanity, I myself am insane, and recreation can be considered a subset of insanity.)) -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (07/23/85)
In article <91@rtp47.UUCP> throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes: > >Living space might be a reason, [for alien invasion] >but would require an unreasonably >advanced transport technology to make it feasible and at the same time >have the technology level low enough to preclude easier solutions to >population pressure (such as Ringworlds). (The exception is when cost >is no object, eg, the aliens need to escape from a supernova or the >like.) First of all, I doubt that Ringworlds are an easier solution to population pressure. It takes a lot of energy for interstellar travel, but it takes a lot more to build a ringworld. Besides, there is an underlying fallacy here: the idea that there is such a thing as enough living space. Exponential growth will use up whatever space is available, in relatively short order. So we have a ringworld. In a thousand years we will want another (or ten thousand, or a million). In thirty to a hundred years, we will want a third. In fifteen to forty, we want a fourth. After that, we start wanting them frequently. By the way, interstellar travel (at sub-light speeds) is not as bad as most of us have been led to believe (generation ships and such). Forseeable technology will get us about one-tenth the speed of light. This will get us to the nearest star in about forty years. A long time, but many of those who set out will get there. A somewhat more problematical technology, the anti-matter drive, will get us there at one g if we are willing to expend reaction mass comparable to the delivered mass. That gets us there in about seven years (a bit less for the travelers.) Right now it looks like the biggest problem with this drive is producing anti-matter economically (it can already be produced, using particle accelerators, it's just fantastically expensive). There are other possibilities, such as lasers, not to mention ideas that haven't been thought of yet. In short, our children *can* go to the stars; and even come back.
jeffh@brl-tgr.ARPA (the Shadow) (07/23/85)
> Is anyone familiar with any novels or stories in which the taking of human > (or other sentient) slaves by an advanced race is treated with some degree > of depth? > Jeff Rogers > jcr@Mitre-Bedford.ARPA This is probably not quite what you were after, but hopefully still relevant. In SUNDIVER and STARTIDE RISING, David Brin has postulated an interesting idea: the enslavement of an entire race. (Has anyone seen this idea before? If so, where?) The "advanced" races were basically fighting over the "rights" to own the human race. After all, it's silly to allow a violent, un-monitored race to exist. Who knows what they might do? The only reason humanity escaped was that none of the races would allow any other to have them. (flames to /dev/null, please, if my memory is faulty.) Now, this sounds highly plausible to me. Wouldn't humanity benefit from having access to the *entire* scientific, artistic, and philoso- phical output of another intelligent species? And what if they were telepathic? Then what wouldn't we do to control them? Taking it as a given that humans have a different perspective on life, the universe, and everything (sorry, Doug) from our hypothetical aliens, we might have something(s) they would kill (or even cross interstellar space) to get. As to expense; once you collect a sufficient sample, you cart them to your own system, give them a "game preserve," and they will be self supporting. You just quietly skim a few off the top every year to fill your own needs. (Now, does anyone want to discuss the large number of disappearances every year on this planet?) BTW, does any- one know just how many people it would take to "guarantee" a safe gene pool? How about cultural continuity? With luck, they may revere us as gods. the Shadow ARPA: <jeffh@brl> UUCP: {seismo,decvax}!brl!jeffh
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/25/85)
In article <525@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: >Besides, there is an underlying fallacy here: the idea that there is such >a thing as enough living space. Exponential growth will use up whatever >space is available, in relatively short order. So we have a ringworld. >In a thousand years we will want another (or ten thousand, or a million). >In thirty to a hundred years, we will want a third. In fifteen to forty, >we want a fourth. After that, we start wanting them frequently. This itself is a fallacy, on two counts. As far as humans are concerned, exponential is characteristic of a certain phase of technological and cultural development. Most developed societies today have either slowly growing or stable populations. I terms of other races, well, whose to say? I would venture to guess, however, that a race which had an unalterable tendency towards high growth rates would have a hard time developing adequate technology; too much effort would be going into people starving. >By the way, interstellar travel (at sub-light speeds) is not as bad as most >of us have been led to believe (generation ships and such). Forseeable >technology will get us about one-tenth the speed of light. This will get >us to the nearest star in about forty years. A long time, but many of >those who set out will get there. That's a generation ship. Very few women are fertile after 40 years. >A somewhat more problematical technology, the anti-matter drive, will get >us there at one g if we are willing to expend reaction mass comparable to >the delivered mass. That gets us there in about seven years (a bit less >for the travelers.) Right now it looks like the biggest problem with this >drive is producing anti-matter economically (it can already be produced, >using particle accelerators, it's just fantastically expensive). There >are other possibilities, such as lasers, not to mention ideas that haven't >been thought of yet. Well, unless you are going to break out of the current laws of physics, it takes the same amount of energy to get there in a certain time no matter how you store the power. You either have to generate it along the way, or produce it all at the beginning and store it somewhere (and storage isn't necessarily a problem). And it's a LOT of energy, all of which you have to get rid of if you expect to stop when you get there. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "Tom, how am I going to generate that kind of power? It can't be done!"
jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) (07/25/85)
[...] The enslavement of entire races is a common enough theme all over the place. First examples to come to mind are "The Word for World is Forest" by Ursula K.LeGuin, the Velantians (slaves to the Overlords in the Lensman series), and the lion-like aliens in "Warriors' Gate" in Dr.Who. Generally races are enslaved for one of the following reasons: (a) The slavers are just natural slavers at heart. This is the case in Sundiver, etc. They think that enslavement is the natural state of affairs. (b) The slaves can do something the slavers can't. This is true of the lion-like aliens in Dr.Who -- they had psychic abilities that allowed them to navigate in space (around meteor showers, through asteroid belts, etc.). It occurs to me, this was also the reason that the Slavers enslaved the Tnuctipun in Niven's known space series. (c) The number of slavers is too small to do some job they want to do. In this case, the slavers are technologically advanced enough to control large numbers of slaves, and these slaves are the ones who will do the work. Note that the slavers can actually be sympathetic characters if this is their motivation: they have something vastly important to do and must take repulsive measures to achieve their ends. Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo
throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (07/26/85)
I'd like to make some clarifications on some points raised about an earlier article. > > Living space might be a reason, [for alien invasion] but would require > > an unreasonably advanced transport technology to make it feasible and at > > the same time have the technology level low enough to preclude easier > > solutions to population pressure (such as Ringworlds). (The exception > > is when cost is no object, eg, the aliens need to escape from a > > supernova or the like.) > > First of all, I doubt that Ringworlds are an easier solution to population > pressure. It takes a lot of energy for interstellar travel, but it takes > a lot more to build a ringworld. I have no idea how much energy must be expended to build a ringworld. But I seriously doubt it would be as much as the energy required to boost the life support and posessions of several billion alien folks to near-lightspeed. > Besides, there is an underlying fallacy here: the idea that there is such > a thing as enough living space. Exponential growth will use up whatever > space is available, in relatively short order. So we have a ringworld. That *is* a fallacy all right. But I don't agree that it is "here", in the sense of my asserting that there is such a thing as "enough living space". All I said was that aliens looking to increase their living space would probably emulate Holland rather than Spain. (That is, they would construct some rather than exploring to get it.) I based this assertion on the relative costs as they seem to me with known or extrapolated technology. > In short, our children *can* go to the stars; and even come back. Quite so. Explorers and trade can be sent to the stars. However, I still have my doubts about wholesale export of populace. > franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw
lindley@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (John L. Templer) (07/27/85)
> This is probably not quite what you were after, but hopefully still > relevant. In SUNDIVER and STARTIDE RISING, David Brin has postulated > an interesting idea: the enslavement of an entire race. (Has anyone > seen this idea before? If so, where?) Well, there's Larry Niven's short story "What Can You Do With Chocolate Covered Manhole Covers?", which is found in the anthology "All the Myriad Ways." The idea in that story is that an alien race seeded humans on Earth as a means to improve the stock among their servant race (us). > Now, this sounds highly plausible to me. Wouldn't humanity benefit > from having access to the *entire* scientific, artistic, and philoso- > phical output of another intelligent species? Assuming that you mean humans interacting with a more advanced race, then I don't think that would necessarily be such a good idea. I pretty much agree with the idea that the more advanced civilization would destroy the other, even if accidentaly. > Taking it as a given that humans have a different perspective on life, > the universe, and everything (sorry, Doug) from our hypothetical > aliens, we might have something(s) they would kill (or even cross > interstellar space) to get. About the only things I can see a race traveling interstellar distances to obtain are such items as life extending drugs (like Niven's booster spice), or cultural items. A planet or star system might have too little of some material like a certain metallic element, but they wouldn't need to get that from another civilization; they'd just find some nice uninhabited rock ball and mine it themselves. > As to expense; once you collect a sufficient sample, you cart them > to your own system, give them a "game preserve," and they will be > self supporting. You just quietly skim a few off the top every year > to fill your own needs. (Now, does anyone want to discuss the large > number of disappearances every year on this planet?) BTW, does any- > one know just how many people it would take to "guarantee" a safe gene > pool? How about cultural continuity? See above. -- ~~ John L. Templer, University of Texas at Austin ~~ {allegra,gatech,seismo!ut-sally,vortex}!ut-ngp!lindley A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (07/29/85)
In article <988@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >In article <525@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: > >>Besides, there is an underlying fallacy here: the idea that there is such >>a thing as enough living space. Exponential growth will use up whatever >>space is available, in relatively short order. > >This itself is a fallacy, on two counts. As far as humans are concerned, >exponential is characteristic of a certain phase of technological and cultural >development. Most developed societies today have either slowly growing or >stable populations. I terms of other races, well, whose to say? I would >venture to guess, however, that a race which had an unalterable tendency >towards high growth rates would have a hard time developing adequate >technology; too much effort would be going into people starving. I believe that stable populations are a temporary anomaly. Only populations which lack room to expand are stable. The reason is that that which holds still is sooner or later overwhelmed by that which keeps growing. This is a fundamental fact for both biological and cultural evolution. You are confusing "exponential" growth rates with "high" growth rates. Exponential means that the annual growth is some fraction of the total population. For growth to not be exponential, ultimately all but a tiny fraction of the populated area must have ZPG. My example assumes a growth rate of .7 to 3%. We have acheived considerable technological gains with a growth rate in that range. But even a growth rate two or three orders of magnitude lower doesn't change the argument significantly: you run out of space very quickly, as measured by an astronomical time scale. And remember, it only takes ONE race to fill the entire galaxy. >> This will get >>us to the nearest star in about forty years. > >That's a generation ship. Very few women are fertile after 40 years. Perhaps a one-generation ship :-). It's not "our great great grandchildren will get there." >> That gets us there in about seven years (a bit less >>for the travelers.) Right now it looks like the biggest problem with this >>drive is producing anti-matter economically (it can already be produced, >>using particle accelerators, it's just fantastically expensive). > >Well, unless you are going to break out of the current laws of physics, it >takes the same amount of energy to get there in a certain time no matter how >you store the power. You either have to generate it along the way, or produce >it all at the beginning and store it somewhere (and storage isn't necessarily >a problem). Storage probably is the problem, unless you generate it along the way. Even assuming fusion, the reaction mass is significant compared to the size of the ship. That means you have to carry more reaction mass to accelerate the fuel, and you wind up using LOTS of energy. Of course, a ramjet will solve the problem, but ramjets may or may not be workable. My point is that there a lot of potential technologies, and almost certainly, SOME of them work. > And it's a LOT of energy, all of which you have to get rid of >if you expect to stop when you get there. The seven year figure assumes you accelerate halfway, and decelarate the other half. >Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe > >"Tom, how am I going to generate that kind of power? It can't be done!" There is plenty of energy available from the sun. If you wanted to move whole planets, it would get problematical, but for spacecraft there is no problem.
doug@escher.UUCP (Douglas J Freyburger) (08/26/85)
> From: jcr@Mitre-Bedford > I just tuned in to SF-Lovers yesterday after several weeks away and was > rather surprised to see the discussion about What an Advanced Race Would > Come Far to Get still going on, albeit somewhat in a somewhat diluted form. > > (proposals that aliens might want humans as slaves) > > An interesting possibility occurs to me. Imagine a race whose evolution has > been similar to that of Vulcans, from an emotional & violent past to a very > cold & rational present. But this race has gone even further; they've lost > emotion to the extent that they are now totally unable to create art. How- > ever, they can still appreciate it, and works of art from their distant past > are highly treasured. What would happen if such a race discovered humanity > as we currently are? Might they take us as slaves, forcing us to create > artworks for them? Would such a scheme work? Would the kidnapped humans > create great art? Perhaps so, if suffering contributes to great art. Or > would they turn out trash? Would the aliens know the difference? Has anyone > read anything like this? > Jeff Rogers The "Skylark of Space" series had an advanced alien race that had lost the ability to put any emotion into their music, I think in "Skylark Three", the second of the series. They were really impressed listening to our heroes play the violin, and with their barber-shop quartet singing. These aliens were friendly and non-agressive, though. They didn't want slaves. Here is good old E. E. "Doc" Smith to the rescue with examples. -- Doug Freyburger DOUG@JPL-VLSI, DOUG@JPL-ROBOTICS, JPL 171-235 ...escher!doug, doug@aerospace, Pasadena, CA 91109 etc. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are far too ridiculous to be associated with my employer. Unix is a trademark of Bell Labs, VMS is a trade mark of DEC, and there are others that I'm probably forgeting to mention.