>>16981035
There are a few of UFO incidents where we fought with a UFO.

Iranian fighter pilot attempts to shoot at UFO and the UFO shoots back in 1976:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64uFqUv23v4&list=PLaXr8NoZavXNZnOS7cij_RXF7msnlM1Gj&index=9

UFO makes US military pilot and jet dissapear forever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZTYhwwq4tc&list=PLaXr8NoZavXNZnOS7cij_RXF7msnlM1Gj&index=7

US soldiers attacked by a UFO in the korean war:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E85-tQ2lO_I&list=PLaXr8NoZavXNZnOS7cij_RXF7msnlM1Gj&index=32

Fighter pilot crashes after attempting to intercept UFO:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNMe2Gfniqg&list=PLaXr8NoZavXNZnOS7cij_RXF7msnlM1Gj&index=62

>>16981035
Humans have become progressively less violent over time. Civilization acting as a monopoly of force reduces the proportion of our individual lives which are dedicated to violence as engaging in that behavior threatens the monopoly which has ample resources to crush you. This is a trend which is expected to continue with various peaks and troughs but overall unidirectional momentum.
This is all a lot of words to say that more advancement tends to equal less violence, even if the capacity to commit violence increases. So one should expect a civilization much more advanced than ours to generally be less violent.

>some think that aliens are aware of us and our violence and avoid contacting us for this reason
That's kinda a stupidly speculative take, thoughbeit. If we were the aliens visiting a planet with a tribal species, I highly doubt how "grug smash" they are at this point in their development would really impact our willingness to contact them.

>>16981035
tl;dr but it is quite probable such viloent civilization destroys itself before finding us

>>16981197
>Civilization acting as a monopoly of force reduces the proportion of our individual lives which are dedicated to violence
That doesn't tell you much about a civilization's predisposition towards collective violence.

>one should expect a civilization much more advanced than ours to generally be less violent
No, you'd only expect its individuals to have less aggressive predispositions on a personal level. But you're making claims about the dynamics between different civilizations. If anything, your premise suggests a race of powerless individuals whose personal opinions about violence decide nothing on that level.

>>16981264
It's a valid concern but I think you're overselling it a touch. Collective violence demands individual aggression at some stage, even if it's not a 1:1 correspondence. The leaders must make the decision to apply violent force. There must be a subset of the population whose job it is to carry out that force. As the population becomes more pacified, those entrusted to enact collective force become less competent at it (see: police forces in Europe when dealing with foreign criminals).

Now there is a legitimate question whether they'd see us as "human" insofar as considerations one would take when thinking to carry out violence. Their relationship to us may end up becoming similar to our relationship to ants if they ever consider the possibility of colonizing our world. But this kinda escapes the whole "violent vs peaceful" framing entirely.

File: IMG_0145.jpg (289.3 KB)

>>16981035
It will likely be what happened with columbus and the natives. Diseases included. Some say viruses have an alien origin.

File: Screenshot 2026-05-22 at 03-23-38 army-robot-dogs-guns-middle-east.jpg (JPEG Image 1152 × 604 pixels).png (793.0 KB)

>>16981890
>Collective violence demands individual aggression at some stage
>As the population becomes more pacified, those entrusted to enact collective force become less competent at it (see: police forces in Europe when dealing with foreign criminals).
I can tell you're not a member of an advanced civilization, anon, because you still think about violence in caveman terms. I wouldn't worry about European police competence that much. It won't be a problem soon because you're gonna find out what "monopoly on violence" really means. The people who run this world don't feel shit when they slaughter millions, anon, and the people they run over don't do shit. That's what individual nonaggression begets in reality.

>>16981068
I also forgot about this fighter jet incident from peru in 1980 where a UFO performed evasive maneuvers when about to be shot:
https://youtu.be/Q0gkgQOgWj8

File: gor.jpg (428.8 KB)

If there are a million alien civilizations out there, some are bound to be extremely friendly, others are bound to be extremely hostile

>>16981035
If aliens ever came down to trade with us, i really hope we would tell them to fuck off. We should not be manipulated into trading for tech that we aren’t ready to have yet

Compare how violent are humans today compared to humans in the past. Now multiply that for thousands of years that the aliens would have lived in a much more technologically advanced society. The logical conclusion is that they should be extremely rational and cold, not just violent. Now, they can be very rational and cold but also not benevolent. Imagine that they are searching for a new planet because their home planet is dying, they come here and there is now way to share the planet with us. In that scenario they can decide to exterminate all humans and take the planet for them being very rational and cold but also not being benevolent.

File: 1752949648353538.png (546.4 KB)

I also read the three body problem series

>>16981197
>That's kinda a stupidly speculative take, thoughbeit. If we were the aliens visiting a planet with a tribal species, I highly doubt how "grug smash" they are at this point in their development would really impact our willingness to contact them.
You wouldn't avoid contacting a primitive and violent species out of fear that they would be a threat to your civilization (though they might be a thread to the individuals that made this contact, depending on how violent they are). But one solid reason not to make that contact is for that primitive species' sake, as a sort of "prime directive" like that in Star Trek. If you insta-jumped an intelligent species from their stone age to a space age without allowing them to progress naturally along the incremental stages to get their on their own, then you've robbed them of whatever distinct history and culture they might have otherwise developed. For example, consider the culture that Japan has today where it was allowed to develop in isolation for centuries before it was finally forced to modernize and then contrast that with Native Americans who just got crushed or were "modernized" onto reservations in a hurry and got robbed of everything they might have otherwise been had they been left alone to develop naturally. That's the gist behind the "prime directive" and why its considered unethical to insta-jump a race and bypass their natural progression. But every alien civilization will have their own ideology and some would disagree; and still others might just opt to wipe out or enslave those primitives. As much as you may like to believe otherwise, there's quite a few humans who would be fine with wiping out or enslaving primitive aliens if they could do so.

That said, another possible issue with insta-jumping a primitive violent species is even if they're not a threat to you in their primitive state, they could become a threat after you elevated them to your level. Again, consider the Japanese as an example.

File: 54gbhdf35gfmkvde3.jpg (41.9 KB)

>>16981035
>Most would agree that Humans are a very violent species
This is incorrect. Even within our own species, cultures like the Moriori, Semai, and the Old Europeans (Europe before Indo-Europeans) had very peaceful and egalitarian societies. Even certain religious groups like the Jains or Buddhist Monks in South Asia had strong pacifistic values. The thing is all of those societies were wiped out by very aggressive and militaristic societies that became more relevant in shaping the world, so you are correct in that regards. But we are left with a survivorship bias showcasing human nature as being violent, in reality we are only left with violent ones.

>but I think in studying their evolutionary history there will always be a lot of hunting and warfare
Alien biology could be fundamentally different from ours. Maybe they don't hunt and get their energy from photosynthesis or filter feeding. Instead of war they might solve conflicts with ritual dancing or sexual acts. These might sound ridiculous but even on Earth different species use these things. Better yet if they are this advanced, perhaps they have some resource printer or some supercomputer that avoids conflicts all together.

>That's why I think it is a terrible mistake to try to speed-rush our way towards making contact with some alien species
With that I still agree with you. Even though I don't believe an advanced alien civilization is anywhere near us, trying to make contact is a bad decision cause anything can happen.

>>16981035
>Most would agree that Humans are a very violent species
nah, that's just liberal faggot nihilism. they need something to complain about so they can pretend to the higher moral ground.

>>16981035
the ability to become violent when needed is valuable in nature, if an organism is always violent it won't have enough altruism to dominate like humans have done

>>16981035
What I'm surprised of is why space isn't full of AI and machines.

Given we've established AI is possible in principle, I'm surprised we don't see robots/ships multiplying endlessly in space to create infinite ai automata that then recreate itself.

Like think about it; the robot/ship travels indefinitely until it finds a planet with suitable resources. It then lands and terraforms the planet until it's able to create a self replicating factory pumping out more robots/ships. These robots can literally seed life and work a million years to get the planet going and for the timeframe of the universe that's literally a blink.

Biological life has too many drawbacks in space.

>>16985427
No power supply is going to last you the thousands of years spent transiting interstellar darkness.

>>16981035
Here on Earth looking directly at someone for more than three full seconds is now considered "violence".

There is no way to know what a completely alien species would consider violence and that's what makes it so dangerous. Exchanging ones firstborn to the other person to be eaten as a gesture of friendship could be a custom. There is no way of knowing and if they were powerful enough to get here in the first place there isn't mush we could do about it.

File: disco-stu-trends-if-these-trends-continue.gif (449.5 KB)

>>16982140
Single variable analysis is foolish.

>>16981035
you do not "make contact" with advanced forms of existence. that is not something you can do. they would make contact with you, but I doubt they're interested in a fucking monkey lmao

even if they'd be curious about our shit they could simply copy the data and run some simulations and observe what these forms of life do. but they probably ran all the possible sims for any kind of self-replicating/enduring form of "life" their ASI tech could come up with, us included

>>16981035
>most would agree
Flimsy foundation for any kind of speculation.

>>16986146
Humans are a very violent species, are they not? Would most people truly disagree with that? I think you are being pedantic with OP and ignoring the actual post.

>>16981035
>ZERO
So you're not interested in a discussion as a black and white thinking brainlet, alright.

>>16981035
>Even if they do manage to eventually shed that, it is naive to take it as a given and just assume that they would.

I think shedding your overtly violent nature is likely a prerequisite to evolve past a planet-locked civilization.

We've almost started global nuclear war in the past. In the future we'll certainly develop weapons capable of annihilating our entire civilization or planet. Imagine Mars being habitable and we sent settlers there, in a few hundred years they would be very different from us culturally and physically, and there'd be Earth vs. Mars wars. It wouldn't help if we managed to re-conquer Mars without annihilation either, the same cycle would just repeat with new settlers, or even faster with Martian survivors now harboring a grudge.

The only solutions I can think of are to stop wanting to conquer and destroy things different from you, or become so homogenized that people are very similar to each other everywhere. But the latter seems impossible to manage with interstellar distances, and would probably also grind progress to a halt because different ideas and conflicts drive progress. So I think the only solution is to become peaceable.

>That's why I think it is a terrible mistake to try to speed-rush our way towards making contact with some alien species.

I don't think we should beam welcomes out there, which thankfully we're not doing either. If we detected aliens we'd undoubtedly study the shit out of them every way we can think of. (At that point some people more eager to send invitations would probably need to be reined in.) Broadcasting radio signals etc into space unwittingly is whatever, those decay to undetectable levels quickly and trying to stop that from happening be annoying for us and paranoid levels of careful.

Vegans would disagree with the notion that humans are shedding their violent nature towards other species. Most here wouldn't think twice about killing "pests". A sufficiently advanced alien species might very well see us the same way we view ants. We acknowledge that ants have a social structure that permits them to build structures and engage in forms of agriculture but we still pull out the can of Raid when they're somehow inconvenient to us.
The other thing to consider is that just because a species wields a technology doesn't mean that species was advanced enough to develop it. Indians couldn't develop the steam engine and railroads but they still make use of them, often to comical results.

>>16981197
I don't think so, now we just hide violence behind layers of bureaucracy. Whether it's slave labor in the global supply chain, or killing trillions of animals for consumption, or modernized warfare, the scale of violence might be worse than in the past

>>16986365
Playing the devil's advocate here. While violence might be greater than it was in the past, it is far less accepted among the population today. For a long time in our history shitty working conditions, torture & execution as punishments, and warfare were widely accepted and seen as necessary.

But now slavery is illegal worldwide and ethical treatment of workers is required in first-world nations. We seek to rehabilitate criminals and end the death penalty worldwide. And nowadays people are less eager than ever to fight in wars. Even things like the vegan movement or lab-grown meat has been gaining traction for some years now. Our abundance of wealth and the interdependence of nations has allowed us to seek non-violent and peaceful alternatives as a viable solution.

okay im just a brainlet autist but here's my take-
our violence comes from territorialism
a competition for resources.
in such a competitive environment, aggression is usually a beneficial trait- after however many millions of years, that is why it is so innate to us.
There exists infinite possibilities across our Universe for different environmental conditions, breeding all kind of forms of evolution / development / coming to sentience.
for example, a single species inhabiting a planet that needs to only photosynthesize light to live, over millions of years becoming more and more efficient at harnessing solar energy into life etc. where there exists no need to compete for resources would birth a very different sentience to ours. and yes it is improbable, but so is our existence. yet here we are.

>TL:DR- There are a multitude of conditions that allow for the emergence and advancement of lifeforms- without the need or capacity for violence.

>>16981035
>be violent alien.
>develop space travel.
>colonize neighboring planets first.
>you and your new, violent neighbors blast each other back into the stone age before you even leave your home system.

>>16981035
Yeah, but they wouldn't go straight to war and slavery either. Even humans have evolved from direct slavery to wage slavery. Aliens who can travel to distant stars would probably have something even more sophisticated, both socially and technologically. And the sad fact is if aliens showed up tomorrow we'd all be climbing over each other to gain their favor like so many crabs. They wouldn't even need to wage war on us, we'd be eager to gain their tech and do it for them.

Honestly, I don't think we'd even have anything to offer interstellar aliens besides our "culture" (however worthless it may be). I doubt our planet has any resources they couldn't get closer to home. We already have AI smarter than the average human, and soon we'll have robots more dexterous, so imagine what they would have. So they wouldn't need our minds, our bodies, or our resources. I can't even fathom why they'd do it any different from The Federation on Star Trek. Observe us for shits and giggles, make contact if we're about to discover FTL and start shitting on their streets. If YOU were an alien, would you want to make contact with people who would undoubtedly become the jeets of the galaxy?

Nobody assumes an alien civilization would be peaceful, in fact, most people imagine an alien civilization would view us the way we view animals, because we are lesser intelligence to them. If they are able to come here in a UFO they are likely much smarter than us because we are not able to exit the solar system yet and we're not even close to it yet lol.

>>16981255
>tl;dr but it is quite probable such viloent civilization destroys itself before finding us
I don't see why this would be probable at all. Much of their planets history might be disunited with various realms fighting against one another, much like most of our own history has been. But at some point one of these realms might gain the upper hand and establish a united global empire under a single Emperor. This species would then be at peace, as far as itself is concerned. But its violent genetic tendencies would still remain. Now imagine this united yet violent species comes in contact with some other species, such as us. Its naive to assume they would be happy to co-exist peacefully with us in the galaxy, because they clearly were not willing to co-exist peacefully among themselves on their own world.

Always be very suspicious of some species which has managed to unite their entire world under the hegemony of some global Emperor. This is the tell-tale sign of a very violent history. And it likely doesn't end there.

>>16981035
Based on what metric are humans very violent? Hardly a fractions of a percent are ever convicted of any violent offense. Even in times of war, there is hardly any violence on a per capita basis. Why are you so stupid?

>>16983130
>But we are left with a survivorship bias showcasing human nature as being violent, in reality we are only left with violent ones.
That actually proves the point. Those examples you gave of cultures that were pacifists but then got conquered and replaced by those who were anything but pacifists. Well, Jains and Buddhist Monks are religious sects. They may be tolerated within their respective societies, but they're not the ones running things. I could imagine some otherwise violent alien species might have their own equivalent of Jains or Buddhist monks which are tolerated within their culture, but again they're not the ones running things. The alien culture might otherwise on the whole be like the Klingons, and just because a very small minority of a pacifist sect existing within their society wouldn't change the overall fact. You deal with Khahless the Conqueror and his invasion fleet that shows up on your homeworld day; not some pacifist monks who are back on Khahless the Conqueror's own homeworld who might be immolating themselves in protest over this act of aggression.

>>16993720
Judging by the Western "success" in subverting the world, the obsessive expansionist conqueror predisposition is hyper-dysgenic and rapidly self-extinguishing. Do you have a viable model for an obsessive expansionist conqueror that doesn't result in a psychotic power hierarchy destroying itself and anyone involved in it?

>>16985427
>What I'm surprised of is why space isn't full of AI and machines.
It could be for all we know. Its not like we've gone out there and thoroughly searched, have we? Our own solar system could be cluttered with derelict ai probes. I've heard that among the trojans of Jupiter would be a great place to search as a lot of interstellar objects tend to get caught in the gravity of Jupiter and just hang out there. Probes aside, it would also be a good place to search for interstellar comets or asteroids such as what Oumuamua was. Or then again, Oumuamua itself could have been an ai probe passing through whilst passively observing us. We simply do not know.
>>16985432
>No power supply is going to last you the thousands of years spent transiting interstellar darkness.
Fusion power can last you a very long time, if you're able to master it. So far we haven't, but I'd presume we eventually will, and some civilization more advanced than us probably has. Once you have that, you can just sweep up hydrogen from the interstellar medium enough to sustain it probably indefinitely. Antimatter can also get you a lot of bang in a very small package. In fact, far more even than Fusion can. You can also harness solar power when you're chilling out in close vicinity of stars. You don't have to rely on a single source of energy, but can have a mix of these (and others) to get you along. Also, don't forget that inertia in space is limitless without any gravity and little matter to slow you down. So once you actually do get moving, you only need to use fuel to maneuver or slow down. But for 90% of your journey you can just cruise along freely. And if you're an AI you have no set lifespan so if your journey takes a thousand years then whatever. Getting to another star in a hurry is only an issue if you're a biological organism and one that hasn't achieved clinical immortality.

File: C88F6330-8856-4CA5-9023-BE3AA9D99EEB.jpg (114.3 KB)

They come in peace they said

>>16981035
It'll be a lot more like researchers finding an exotic species of ant out in the forest than Europeans colonizing savages. They won't kill us, not because they aren't violent per se, but because there's probably more benefit to them in studying us than killing us. We're wouldn't even remotely be a threat or an inconvenience.

I like the pardons in the polity universe, giant, genocidal hyperintelligslent crab creatures that can pilot starship and a range of weapons to fight to a stalemate humans. Check out dark intelligence for a cool trilogy if books.

>>16981975
>Diseases included
But it was due to very specific historical circumstances that the natives died to European diseases, while the Europeans had decent immunity against new world infections.
Who's to say that the ayys don't get war of the worldsified

>>16981035
I think it's honestly just hard to tell for sure.
We are the way we are due to very specific evolutionary pressures of out environment. Who's to say that if you change some variables early on you can't get a biosphere in which altruism isn't the best strategy?

>>16996305
fuck, double negative, you know what I meant

>>16996305
So there are no predators in that planet?

>>16981035
>a monkey says there are zero reason to assume some mystical "human" tribe out there are more civilized than they are
okay

>>16985490
that has been the trend since the beginning of history, to settle disputes peacefully, and states with their judiciaries are just going to become more and more powerful, one hundred years from now you are going to get and instant courtroom citation delivered directly to your brain for deadnaming a troon