• • permalink • Discuss in Forums •  subscribe

---

How not to prepare for an alien invasion

George Dvorsky

George Dvorsky

Sentient Developments

Posted: Apr 29, 2007

This is the most ridiculous book I’ve seen in quite some time: An Introduction to Planetary Defense: A Study of Modern Warfare Applied to Extra-Terrestrial Invasion by Travis S. Taylor et al.

Book description

“This book describes a serious look at defending the planet in the event of an extra-terrestrial invasion. Travis Taylor, et al, have written the definitive book on the defense of earth against a potential alien incursion. Whatever your beliefs on the subject...the book also serves as an important primer on the potential future of warfare on every level. It is tightly grounded in current day realities of war and extrapolates thoughtfully but closely about future potentials. It should be on the reading list of anyone who is serious about national security and the future of war.”

The authors believe that there is a “high probability” that one or two intelligent alien species visit Earth every century. They also reject Carl Sagan‘s famous assertion that advanced space-faring civs have by necessity (i.e. selectional processes) advanced beyond the need for war. “It’s a wonderful idea that has no basis in reality,” claims Taylor.

Consequently, they feel that the world, or more specifically “America,” needs to be on the ready. They advocate asymmetric warfare to combat the extraterrestrials. The authors argue that the likely technological imbalance would force defending forces to adopt guerrilla-like tactics—warfare along the lines of what is currently being experienced by troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. “[I]if we were attacked by aliens, this is our best defense,” writes Taylor.

Post-Singularity warfare

There is so much wrong with all this that I don’t know where to begin. Their line of argumentation seems to belong in the 20th century.

The idea of the United States defending the planet with guerrilla tactics reminds me of one of the most absurd films of all-time, Independence Day. In this movie, America experiences a supreme ass kicking until the alien invaders are thwarted by the Fresh Prince and his Apple Newton (remember those?).

Okay, time for a 21st century reality check. And let me put it this way: setting aside hand-waving dismissals of the Fermi Paradox (and that’s a BIG caveat), if an advanced space-faring intelligence were to arrive at Earth with hostile intentions, their attack would be over before we could say, “E.T. phone home.”

Specifically, I’m imagining a post-Singularity machine intelligence with access to artificial superintelligence, advanced robotics, genetically designed phages, and Drexlerian nanotechnology (if not femtotechnology). It would be like the Terminator and Matrix worlds on steroids. And that’s if they want a planet to recover; the use of anti-matter weapons would make quick work of our planet should they want to destroy it. Alternately they could set the atmosphere aflame using grey-goo nano. Or how about robotic locust swarms, autonomous hunter-killers, and neurowarfare?

Moreover, malevolent ETIs wouldn’t even need to visit the Earth—they could send their forces by proxy in the form of Von Neumann probes, or what has also been dubbed berserker probes. These are self-replicating space-craft that could conceivably reproduce and travel across the Galaxy at an exponential rate. These devices could carry a number of nasty weapons with them for their attack.

As an aside, the theoretical prospect of berserkers poses a conundrum that’s related to the Fermi Paradox. Any malevolent or misguided advanced intelligence could spawn a fleet of these probes to sterilize the Galaxy in fairly short order. That said, we clearly don’t live in a sterile Galaxy as witnessed by our ongoing existence. We appear to live in a Galaxy that’s devoid of berserkers for non-obvious reasons.

So, my advice on preparing for an alien invasion?

Simple: don’t bother—you won’t even know what hit you.

---

George Dvorsky serves on the Board of Directors for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. George is the Director of Operations for Commune Media, an advertising and marketing firm that specializes in marketing science. George produces Sentient Developments blog and podcast.

---

• • permalink • Discuss in Forums • Send to: ¡ ¡

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

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.  Let me try and enumerate some cases for a possible first contact scenario:

1.  The aliens are benevolent.
2.  The aliens are malicious, and their technology is vastly superior to ours.
3.  The aliens are malicious, and their technology is superior to ours.

In case 1 and 2, your approach might be correct, but what about case 3?  Should we just roll over and let ourselves be defeated?

Also, _Independence Day_ had nothing to do with asymmetric warfare.  The term asymmetric warfare, as it is generally used today, is not based on the capabilities of each side, but rather on their approach to warfare.  David with a club, versus Goliath with a club, is not asymmetric warfare.  David with a sling, versus Goliath with a club, is asymmetric warfare. 

From your literature, “Through our Securing the Future research program we intend to link with like-minded organizations working to identify and advocate for global solutions to threats to the future of civilization.” If you are serious about safeguarding civilization, how can you casually discard the first serious attempt at addressing this issue?  Wouldn’t a better course be to “link with like-minded organizations” and open a dialogue to remedy your concerns?

Andrew

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.

Mr. Dvorsky,

I can only hope that you are attempting to boost sales of An Introduction to Planetary Defense with what appears to me to be a sensationalist, dismissive article.  I cannot even begin to address your points in a coherent fashion at this point as the others before me have, so please indulge me in countering with a few analogies of my own here, and accept my apologies for commenting while having had far too little sleep.

In essence, you indicated and/or implied that:
1) The aliens that may or may not exist have quite probably advanced beyond conquering and/or hostility.

This is not entirely unlike my refusing to carry a first aid kit in my car, because the Good Samaritan that may or may not come to my aid in an accident is likely to have more advanced medical skill than I, and will probably have a really nifty field surgery kit at hand.

2) The aliens that may or may not exist are vastly superior to us (or have superior weapons, strategy, and tactics) and are extremely hostile, and we’ll never know what hit us.

This is not unlike my walking through a high crime area of a large city with no attempts to avoid being a victim, because any criminal who may or may not be present will attack me, and and I will be overwhelmingly outnumbered/outclassed to boot.

Of course, then there are the ethical and responsible things to do - keep my CPR certification current, take martial arts classes or obtain my concealed weapons permit, know where I am and what the area is like, and dress appropriately for the climate.  Given that “not being here” when aliens attack isn’t really an option, I won’t stretch the analogy into “avoiding high crime areas in the first place”.

It simply makes good common sense to have a GOTH plan, even if it’s just in one’s head.  I’m hardly a survivalist extremist, but I still have an idea what I would have to do to keep my family relatively safe, and surviving, should a number of unlikely disasters strike - major earthquakes, hurricanes (Katrina, anyone?), riots, pandemic, etc.  I plan for a number of things, each day, that don’t happen - small, everyday, noncritical things.  I’ve never had to use my kitchen fire extinguisher - but I would never think of going without having a functional one handy.

It’s quite likely that in several cases, I wouldn’t even know what happened.  However, without at least some thought given to what I would do if such a disastrous situation occurred, it would guarantee that at best I’d have to sit on the roof waiting for Uncle Sugar to come bail me out. Frankly, I find that level of indoctrinated helplessness to be deeply morally offensive, and the encouragement of such to be unethical.  I am unable to differentiate whether your article is attempting to pacify the public by saying “it will never happen, and if it does, you won’t notice, so don’t worry about it”, or if you are indicating condescension towards the entire concept of considering the possibility that we should think about preparing, and possibly even get off our fat, pampered behinds and do something. 

For the record, I’m one of the “sandwich maker” types Dr. Taylor mentioned in the book - which I’m certain will explain my having to resort to analogy to make my argument.  Given that, I’m quite baffled as to why you do not see that fortune favors the prepared - even those who are limited to purely mental preparation on the limited scale of “what if?”.  If someone with as poor a formal education as I can clearly see that An Introduction to Planetary Defense raised points that need to be considered, why the derision in your article?  I don’t have my copy right here in front of me at the moment, but I seem to recall a number of qualifiers in the book that set the parameters for the intellectual exploration of concept quite well.

Cliff’s notes version:
IF aliens are hostile AND aliens do not have “magic death rays” (good old Clarkian magic, that is), THEN we should have a plan in place, and hopefully some really neat equipment ready.  Maybe it’s just my lack of a college degree here, but… this is a problem how?

It is always better to do something rather than ignore a situation, even if it isn’t exactly right. If everyone thought like you do, we’d still be living in caves.
The saber tooth tigers are hungry? Oh well, let them eat us, they’re stronger and we can’t defend ourselves. But some cave men didn’t think like that. They did something. Now who’s extinct, us or the tigers?
Darrell bain

Next entry: Annalee on menstruation suppression and body autonomy

Previous entry: Horgan: How to wire your brain for religious ecstasy