Posted 2 февраля 2021,, 07:56
Published 2 февраля 2021,, 07:56
Modified 25 декабря 2022,, 20:56
Updated 25 декабря 2022,, 20:56
Alexey Tsvetkov, poet
In the science of aliens, which are still and are not, there is the so-called “zoo hypothesis”. According to this hypothesis, they are not there, that is, here, because we, due to our underdevelopment, were placed in a kind of space isolator: they say, first grow up to ours, and then we'll think about whether to communicate with you. The zoo, in fact, is a bad metaphor here: no one feeds us, no poop is cleaned up after us, and no one brings children to see how we fuck in our enclosure. We were simply walled up.
This hypothesis is, as it were, laid down in the basis of the “primary principle” of the heroes of the classic series “Star Trail”, as well as in the directives of the space explorers by the Strugatskys: in no case to interfere. The result is ridiculous, because in fact they only do what they interfere, otherwise there would be no plots. In any case, this hypothesis implies a happy ending: if we behave well and stop at least offending each other, they will fly in and bring us a lot of wonderful cargo.
Personally, I explain everything easier for myself: in fact, there are no aliens anywhere - at least within the observable universe. Moreover, we are not the pinnacle of evolution, but rather its dead end, which will sooner or later put an end to it, but we have a very strong conceit. Our Abrahamic religions are true madman's notes. On the other hand, life almost certainly arose and develops not only on our planet, but it is completely different from what we think of it.
In the zoo hypothesis, in any case, there is a hole that the solar system can easily crawl through. We already have a little idea what enormous energy resources are needed for interstellar contacts, not to mention a number of other factors. That is, those who can, but do not seem to want to visit us, must go a long way of development. But we do not very much link technical evolution with moral, we admit that some of the aliens may be technically advanced, but bad - well, if only because we ourselves are pretty bad. Then the question arises: why these bad aliens, spitting on the galactic charter, do not come to us, take away our resources and start drinking our blood, as they do in many "sci-fi" works?
If we assume (exclusively for philosophical needs) the existence of highly developed galactic civilizations, then it is quite obvious that moral evolution should play at least no less a role in their development than scientific and technical, otherwise they would simply self-annihilate long before the necessary progress, like this most likely we will. Moreover, the moral range in the course of such evolution usually expands, gradually including neighboring clans, cities, races, and then other biological species (and non-biological, again for philosophical needs). That is, we can not be afraid that they will come to drink our blood.
Another question is whether it is worth preparing bins for the wonderful cargo that they will bring to us if we morally mature. We know from our own history that practically any contact of a more developed civilization with a less developed one usually leads not to the assimilation of this latter, but to its social collapse, and the more noticeable the gap in development, the more inevitable and devastating the collapse. In the case of the great aliens, the gap is probably huge. And why should he be reduced - while (and if) we are engaged in moral improvement, they, too, will not stand still. And therefore, they, being kind, will never come to us.
The conclusion is the same: no one is anywhere - either in the direct factual sense, or in the functional sense, which from our point of view is the same.