RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there

["L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>]

On Saturday, October 25, 1997 6:16 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] 
wrote:
>
>  The whole bit with Pellegrino's cute little theory in "The Killing Star"
>  should be an FAQ.  It's been hashed out to death many times on USENET,
>  especially rec.arts.sf.science in relation to the Fermi paradox.
>

Sorry, I don't follow rec.arts.sf.science so I was unaware that this was 
such a popular topic of conversation. I only recently started thinking 
about it because of a posting to this list.

I am familiar with the Fermi Paradox but see no real reason why it is 
relevant, space is vast after all, why SHOULD there be intelligent life 
within 1,000 light years of Earth?

>
> This first law is the most misleading, because while it's obviously
> true, it also probably isn't relevant.
>
> It's hard to imagine a plausible situation where species A can entirely
> wipe out species B (without wiping out itself) AND species B can
> entirely wipe out species A (without wiping out itself).
>
> In fact, if both species A and species B have interstellar space travel
> capability, it's hard to imagine a plausible situation where either
> species can entirely wipe out the other with certainty!
>
> Therefore, it isn't plausible that a species ever "has to choose
> between them and us".

Of course, you are assuming here that both civilization are interstellar, 
Pellegrino made no such assumptions. We quite definitely were "not" 
interstellar. It was the interstellar equivalent of a pre-emptive nuclear 
strike. They attacked BEFORE we had the capability to strike back.

I think my point is that our assumptions that aliens are inherently 
peaceful or aggressive based upon human reactions to the same situation are 
flawed. the "laws" Pellegrino presents may not be either true or relevant, 
but they are logical based upon what we can PROVE, not upon assumptions.

Lee