[ExI] [extropy-chat] "How To Prepare For Alien Invasion"

[George Dvorsky]

I wrote a quick review on my blog, to which I've received a number of
comments -- including the authors themselves.

My post is here:
http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2007/04/how-not-to-prepare-for-alien-invasion.html

Dr. Travis S. Taylor's response:

> Posted by: DocTravis
> Email: travis.taylor at mchsi.com
> URL: http://www.doctravis.com
> Location:
>
> The article here is quite irresponsible in attacking a
> potential solution while offering no other and simply saying
> we must lay down and die.  "Don't bother" it says.  This is a
> typical political approach to solving problems rather than a
> scientific one.  Attacking a solution doesn't offern a new one.
>
> Also, most folks who disregard the Fermi Paradox discussion
> of this book fail completely, as you have Mr. Dvorsky, to
> mention the discussion of Lancherster's Laws and the Central
> Limit theorem.  To bolster such an opinion without fair
> discussion is quite, shall we say, unethical.
>
> What this rebut to the book truly is, is nothing more than an
> emotional disagreement rather than a discussion of real
> ideas.  We do indeed mention the nano ideas and beserkers and
> other SF ideas and we even talk about how silly ID4 is.
>
> So, again, I say that this article is an irresponsible rebut
> to the book.  I welcome dissenting opinions if they are based
> on a real scientific discussion rather than, "That isn't my
> opinion so you guys are stupid."
>
> Our book was designed as a starting point and not a final
> answer.  And, WE actually performed computer models and
> wargames to come to the Mujahideen answer.  WE did the math.
> I ask Mr. Dvorsky, "What math did you do to come to your conclusions?"
>
> Global Security and especially a so-called Ethics group
> should be more responsible with such discussion.  Also, note
> that Mr. Dvorsky never commented on why we say that America
> should lead the tactics.  He just disagrees with it, so that
> makes him right.
>
> Not very responsible Mr. Dvorsky.  Not very ethical.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dr. Travis S. Taylor

Another response:

> Posted by: BillEdwards
> Email: be60164 at hotmail.com
> URL:
> Location:
>
> Mr. Dvorsky's use of the term "advanced" is subject to the
> observer's perspectives and biases.  The Conquistadors were
> technologically advanced compared to the Aztecs, for example,
> but "advanced" could be relative to technology, biology,
> medicine, the "arts", philosophy, etc.  The United States,
> France, China, Russia, Japan, and Israel are "space-faring"
> (locally thus far) but not "advanced" compared to each other
> because of their differences in how they define "advanced" as
> well as the reasons for their space-faring capabilities.
>
> By definition, "Alien" means Unknown;  the space-faring
> capability of an Alien society or civilization doesn't infer
> that society's/civilization's definition as "advanced"
> anymore than an analysis of US or Japanese spacecraft design
> capabilities defines the Chinese sociological foundation, nor
> Chinese to US and Japanese.  Even though those capabilities
> are Earth-based, they do not represent or define Humanity; a
> recognition of physical principles and laws that are required
> to travel into/through space do not create an Introduction to
> Jazz, Bonsai gardening, or folk dancing.  Advanced (and
> Alien) does not mean peaceful, graceful, kind, or benevolent.
>
> Dr. Taylor has presented a work that suggests, based on
> in-depth analysis and research in multiple disciplines, that
> Something _might_ Be Possible and to Prepare For It.  Rather
> than quoting Sagan, I'll use Clarke (paraphrasing); If
> Someone says "This is Impossible", the odds are that he/she
> is wrong, but if Someone says "This is Possible", the odds
> are that he/she is Right.
>
> Hoping for the Best and Planning for the Worst is commendable
> relative to Extraterrestrial "interactions" or anything else
> in life.  Determining that Alien = Good is wishful thinking at best.
>
> Comparing a technological no-nonsense analysis of a possible
> threat situation to a 2nd-rate science-fiction movie that is
> liberally doused with nonsense is indeed "ridiculous".  And,
> reiterating my earlier comment, by what standards of measure
> does Mr. Dvorsky attribute an Alien (i.e., Unknown) level of
> space-faring technology that automatically creates a
> condition of superiority against anything the US or any other
> nation on Earth could provide?
>
> So far as the implementation of guerilla warfare and tactics
> against a higher-technology warfighting capability and any
> associated success there-in, I must presume that Mr. Dvorsky
> missed any similar analytical opportunities regarding Vietnam
> or somewhat similar recent events in the Middle East.
>
> Mr. Dvorsky throws the description of "handwaving" at
> Planetary Defense, but then uses the terms "artificial
> superintelligence" and "grey-goo nano" as well as other
> terms.  Inventing What-Ifs in his argument is self-defeating;
> Planetary Defense presents a Concept of Possibilities and
> Courses of Actions that could be taken _IF_ called for or
> required.  In contrast, Mr. Dvorsky presents the level of
> argument normally found in any kindergarten or elementary
> school , usually starting with "Yeah, but how about..."  It
> is very easy to expound from a safe podium on various topics,
> including this work.  Where is Mr. Dvorsky's annotated work
> that argues against each point Dr. Taylor and company make in
> this work?
>
> I must also presume that Mr. Dorvsky hasn't read, let alone
> heard of, Von Neumann's War.
>
> Mr. Dvorsky's comments regarding the absence of any evidence
> that supports the existence of "Galactic Berserkers" let
> alone the presence of Aliens is self-defeating.  Indeed, we
> do not live in a sterile galaxy (the fact that we're here
> illustrates this).  But by that statement, how does Mr.
> Dvorsky infer that the possibility doesn't exist that other
> life, whose guidance and "morals" are at least equal to our
> own (i.e., threatening), is not present or has not been
> present in the Universe, let alone in this Galaxy, or in our
> Spiral Arm of the Galaxy, or within the Local Bubble (the 100
> light-year sphere around our Sun).
>
> I suggest that Mr. Dvorsky didn't know what he was reading,
> how to read it, or why to read it.  His review of Planetary
> Defense is equivalent to a pastry chef offering a review of a
> theoretical physics paper.