Political Philosophy discussion

[tmv]

A lot of pilots, and I mean a LOT of pilots have witnessed things being done by objects in our atmosphere that are far more advanced than anything our own tech can accomplish, and only perhaps a handful of real shot callers in any given government would be allowed to 'know' the truth, some of whom might be held tightly to keeping that secrecy against their will by extremely strong tactics by the few that do know the truth. There are lots of public whistleblowers as it is, but they are summarily ignored as attention grabbers.

Even observation isn't completely error-free, which is another reason why it's not the "source of knowledge" that empiricists would think it is. Your senses can fool you, although that problem is far less than the Ancient Greeks thought, and then there are completely mundane things the government is keeping from you - like them researching new weapons that look futuristic but are still from Earth. If someone (even a military pilot) saw something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-35 in the late 1940s, they might have thought that this couldn't possibly have been developed by humans.

100 years ago, traveling at 70 mph across land being accessible by a common citizen would've been thought to be a total fantasy that would NEVER happen. Our entire history shows us we continue to advance on every front as we go and should not deign to think there are any such thing as unbreachable limitations.

We always knew that 70 mph could be reached in nature, e.g. by a cheetah. This speech can be reached by exerting a certain amount of force over some time, taking into account your mass, wind resistance, the friction properties of the ground etc. There is no problem with causality, and the established theories have no problems with that. The same was true 200 years ago when the established theory was Newtonian Mechanics. The fact that some ... people who were clearly non-scientists made some apocalyptic predictions about faster speeds (especially when not reached by using a horse) does nothing to change that. We have a better understanding of nature today but these people clearly have their successors in today's world. Does that devalue our current theories?

We don't just have the vague idea that FTL travelling is impossible, we have an established understanding of the world (leading to many testable conclusions that were successfully tested - or perhaps unsuccessfully tried to refute) that is based on faster travelling speeds making no sense. And not just travelling of persons, but of any kind of information. These theories are of course to be considered temporary, but the observations that were made based on them are not. Any further theory would have to be in accordance with them.

There might be a way "around" this with the Alcubierre Drive (which is not, as the name suggests, an engineered solution, but "merely" a solution of the laws of the General Theory of Relativity), but this is more about using a shortcut than accelerating beyond the speed of light. This is highly speculative, needs a lot (about one Jupiter mass per ship) of unconventional matter which we are not sure if it exists at all, and might still be doomed because of massive radiation problems.

I know we don't currently believe there's a health problem with radio waves now but who knows in 50 yrs what we might think.

We have been exposed to radio waves for more than a century, which is still longer than a human lifetime. If health problems are not established by then, what (potential) health problems are we talking about?

 

[Thunderbrd]

Even observation isn't completely error-free, which is another reason why it's not the "source of knowledge" that empiricists would think it is. Your senses can fool you, although that problem is far less than the Ancient Greeks thought, and then there are completely mundane things the government is keeping from you - like them researching new weapons that look futuristic but are still from Earth. If someone (even a military pilot) saw something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-35 in the late 1940s, they might have thought that this couldn't possibly have been developed by humans.

1) There are also tons of these things captured on video footage.
2) That's an easy way to excuse away some 10 or 20 reports but hundreds to thousands?
3) You're suggesting that maybe this is OUR secret technology? I wonder how many more people would have to be in on THAT conspiracy? Particularly when some of these reports are going back to WWII and before.
4) If it IS our tech, it's clearly lightyears ahead of what our current collegiate level cutting edge education is suggesting we can do, which would mean that we've certainly developed something truly fantastic that would require potentially numerous technologies to build up to being capable of. Sounds like the kind of thing we may have had to reverse engineer. Either way, I refer us back to point 3. Yes, there ARE whistleblowers saying we have backengineered this tech from alien sources we've captured, and that WWII Germany gave us the first start down that path, in addition that Russia also has such a research and application program from captured ET crafts.

We don't just have the vague idea that FTL travelling is impossible, we have an established understanding of the world (leading to many testable conclusions that were successfully tested - or perhaps unsuccessfully tried to refute) that is based on faster travelling speeds making no sense. And not just travelling of persons, but of any kind of information. These theories are of course to be considered temporary, but the observations that were made based on them are not. Any further theory would have to be in accordance with them.

That 'established understanding' would admit at every turn that we have not been able to prove that there's any such limitation as well. It's a theory and a loose one at best. It's just as likely that FTL speed is very difficult TO observe or show from the framework of a perspective that isn't moving at such speed or faster. Nothing really suggests that light establishes an upper limit on speed, just that it's the fastest thing we have tracked, and when much of our ability to track speed is based on our observational capacity to measure light, you can see where we have the appearance of a limit - we're blind past that point anyhow. I've read some cutting edge documentation and theory that rationally discards this limitation aside with ease. We once thought we couldn't sail past the horizon because the Earth was flat and that when you approach it, monsters would get you. I don't believe in limits because repeatedly we overcome them - always. But if you embrace a belief in them, they tend to prove themselves to the mind that believes they exist. I don't buy the theories that the speed of light is a cap on speed at all. Not in the slightest. And I know that numerous astrophysicists would agree.

We have been exposed to radio waves for more than a century, which is still longer than a human lifetime. If health problems are not established by then, what (potential) health problems are we talking about?

Are you suggesting that we know everything about all health threats that have been plaguing us for even longer than that? How long have we been using Roundup before finally admitting it causes cancer enough for lawsuits to emerge? Besides, my only point is that we cannot rule out that all we are really showing is that any advanced races out there are not reliant on radio wave technology and that we may soon find reason not to be as well. I'm not trying to make any dubious claims about any direct damage being done, though I do have a hard time imagining its not causing something. It may be causing depression, neurosis, perhaps causing some people to break and decide to start going on shooting sprees... we certainly haven't answered to why that's happening more now than ever. It could be a dampener on senses we barely understand we have now, an inhibitor to some brain functions... etc... Just listing possibilities as to why we might be inclined to stop relying on it, particularly if we found better methods. I suppose we didn't need Papyrus to be found to be unhealthy to use to stop using it but I'm sure the Ancient Egyptians would've thought that if they could simply find the use of papyrus to be in place, they could find a more advanced society like themselves out there.

 

[raxo2222]

@Thunderbrd avoids some tricky questions - coincidence? I think not.
For example I mentioned that statistics can be unintuitive.

Well RNGesus is meme in gaming world for when something rare happens too frequently (happens naturally), also confirmation/survivorship bias exist.

Something weird happens once per 1000 milion. There is 1000 million of events per year, where something weird may happen.
Probability for that happening is >10% per year - could happen even 10 times within year.

This is same if something weird happens once per 1000, and you do something 1000 times in year.
So RNGesus (looks like black swan ) should be great prophet, as he makes miracles occur spontaneously.

Or that he doesn't know how to answer question like this.

Also what if some politicians are actual aliens?
This is what you can pull of in Stellaris.
Since they are at least in late Galactic era (unless someone took more promitive passangers to Earth) they would be indistinguishable from normal humans (something like in Avatar movie).

In my opinion no aliens are interfering with Earth, and everything you say has more mundane explanation.
We have to make aliens and magic after surviving Information and Nanotech lol (what if those aliens are time travelling human descendants)?

Aliens could also fire some balls too... or neutron stars like in universe sandbox.
They could also crash their FTL hypercrafts into earth (that is point them into Earth or Sun without dropping out of warp) or at least pick some asteroid and leave it on collision course with Earth at 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of light speed.
There are few ultimates, that most advanced aliens can pull out, like Big Rip or false vacuum collapse - no one would see it coming.
Only ultimate being could prevent this - God himself (Alien civilization, that reached endgame).

There has to be at least single rogue agent, that managed to grab advanced tech and go into some defenceless universe/galaxy cluster/galaxy.

By the way there are conspiracy theory joke, that world ended in 21st December 2012, and now we are living in simulation.
Weird things related to politicians is what "proves" this joke conspiracy theory.

So pretty much there is constant WWII in space, and we are Americans.
You believe Pearl Harbour will never happen.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Your first bit was a statement, not a question. To which, I can't say I followed it. That said, I find 99% chance of victory defeats ONLY happen when I have units that are about to promote otherwise and tends to happen about 1 out of 10 times I really want that unit to survive so I can see what it's going to be able to promote to. BTW, a 99% chance of victory is actually more like a 99.99999999% chance of victory because it's only the odds during the first round of combat and after that first round, the odds gets better once you succeeded the first round. I've been noticing an incredibly unusual propensity for these kinds of events since Vanilla civ IV of course, and still nothing suggests in the coding that there's anything to make the game lean in towards irony, but it most certainly does.

Also what if some politicians are actual aliens?
This is what you can pull of in Stellaris.
Since they are at least in late Galactic era (unless someone took more promitive passangers to Earth) they would be indistinguishable from normal humans (something like in Avatar movie).

Didn't previously see this comment. And what if some are? Or what if they don't give a rat's ass to do that because for the most part our leaders are bound to secrecy by them because they already owned Earth long before they made humanity to manage it for them and just have to explain that to any new leaders as they also explain that aside from a few things we need to do and/or not do, they pretty much just let us have fun as we wish down here.

As for the rest, you're just throwing around words and mocking and none of it really makes any sense. If a ship can travel at FTL, clearly the technology must also be equipped with means to automatically avoid collisions and it would require a hell of a shielding system for all the small things that would tear the ship apart. You speak of could-be's as if none of it could be answered to. I'm not here to answer them because I can't say I know the answer. But they could all HAVE answers.

What I CAN say is that it's ignorant to think we're alone and haven't been interacted with and aren't consistently encountering such interactions because hundreds to thousands of people worldwide are having such encounters and being summarily ignored by doubters who are doing nothing but trying to protect their own arrogant paradigms so they can protect their egoes and continue to believe that they actually know something and that what they think they know can't be easily disrupted by what they least expect.

No matter how much we think we're paying attention, we really don't have the slightest clue how much more there is taking place beyond the surface of what we can verify for ourselves. We should be at least willing to admit that and stop discarding the mysteries that don't add up and definitely stop immediately assuming they can be debunked and leaning on that presumption to the point that if you can show how something possibly COULD be some unlikely alternative answer that is at least more mundane then surely, that's the answer.

 

[raxo2222]

I meant statistics in general - 1000 000 tries with 1/1000 000 probability each has noticeable chance (>10%) to occur at least once.
As for game maybe this chance display is bit bugged?

Even if FTL ship has safety features, you can always grab something with it, and then leave something on collision course.

Also you think, that space terrorism is impossible.
Or that at certain tech level everyone loses ability to do evil even if it was accidental - destruction is extremely easy to do if you have advanced tech - ever you played Universe Sandbox or read what if XKCD scenarios?
Counter terrorists must have God tech level then.

How they can undetected, when they consume and produce truly awesome amount of energy?

 

[Thunderbrd]

As for game maybe this chance display is bit bugged?

I guess this is something you haven't experienced enough to see how anomolous it actually is eh?

Even if FTL ship has safety features, you can always grab something with it, and then leave something on collision course.

That's making a huge assumption that friction is still a thing for such a vessel, which it could not be, because if it was, it would be destroyed.

Also you think, that space terrorism is impossible.
Or that at certain tech level everyone loses ability to do evil.

No, not impossible, but increasingly unlikely as security systems also improve with technological focus on providing security. Same reason we basically have a society held together at all given how much anger we create around the globe.

 

[tmv]

That's an easy way to excuse away some 10 or 20 reports but hundreds to thousands?

That's impressive if they are independent from each other. Would you be impressed by 1000 witness accounts coming from the same person (other than that one's tenacity)?

You're suggesting that maybe this is OUR secret technology?

The YB-35 certainly was, and it looks impressive enough for someone who lived in that time. And I was speaking about the possibility of people seeing something like this and freaking out.

WWII Germany gave us the first start down that path

Don't you think the USA (and indeed the entire planet) would have learnt about it the hard way if NS Germany had access to such technologies?

that we have not been able to prove

Here we are, proving again. I think I should respond to this in a calm and rational manner...

Proving is for math - in science we can only disprove!!!

Where was I?

It's a theory

And this is directly related to my last point. Because there is no such thing as a scientific proof, every understanding we have is temporary. So we use the word "theory" to mean the highest level of confidence we bestow in science - there is nothing beyond it. When we mean a tentative idea that we are not so sure about we say "hypothesis".

I've read some cutting edge documentation

Hic Rhodos ... What is the title of that documentation or where can I find it?

We once thought we couldn't sail past the horizon because the Earth was flat and that when you approach it, monsters would get you.

I have already said why these two forms of limitations cannot be compared.

And I know that numerous astrophysicists would agree.

Names would be nice.

doubters who are doing nothing but trying to protect their own arrogant paradigms so they can protect their egoes and continue to believe that they actually know something

Wow. You should get that printed on a t-shirt.

 

[raxo2222]

That's making a huge assumption that friction is still a thing for such a vessel, which it could not be, because if it was, it would be destroyed.

Newton is deadliest son of $#@$#$.

That is you take 10 km lead ball on your huge ship.
You speed up to FTL speeds or at least to 99.999% of speed of light
You gently throw out ball - it slowly drifts away from you.
You go somewhere else - don't do anything else with this ball of doom.
After minutes/days/years/millennia this lead ball finally collides with something, when you are long gone.

There is no reason, that someone couldn't throw billions of billions of such balls into completely random directions.
Relativistic payloads could be missed too.

Also small star could be extreme radiation hazard just by relativity - drop it out travelling at 99.999999% speed of light.

No, not impossible, but increasingly unlikely as security systems also improve with technological focus on providing security. Same reason we basically have a society held together at all given how much anger we create around the globe.

Chance of planet destruction : 1/big number.
Number of events, that could result in planet destruction: big number in millennia.
Total chance: >10% chance per millennia, that some planet gets destroyed in particularly violent fashion.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Newton is deadliest son of $#@$#$.

That is you take 10 km lead ball on your huge ship.
You speed up to FTL speeds or at least to 99.999% of speed of light
You gently throw out ball - it slowly drifts away from you.
You go somewhere else - don't do anything else with this ball of doom.
After minutes/days/years/millennia this lead ball finally collides with something, when you are long gone.

There is no reason, that someone couldn't throw billions of billions of such balls into completely random directions.

I doubt the field in which such a travel is made possible would allow this. All within the field is accelerated/decelerated and the field cannot be partially opened (no windows).

That's impressive if they are independent from each other. Would you be impressed by 1000 witness accounts coming from the same person (other than that one's tenacity)?

It's not all from one person. Do you even pay attention to UFOlogy in the least?

Don't you think the USA (and indeed the entire planet) would have learnt about it the hard way if NS Germany had access to such technologies?

I'm not saying they had anything really mastered or applied, though what they did apply could count towards a lot of advancements we accept as simply being theirs in origin. Rocketry, for example.

And this is directly related to my last point. Because there is no such thing as a scientific proof, every understanding we have is temporary. So we use the word "theory" to mean the highest level of confidence we bestow in science - there is nothing beyond it. When we mean a tentative idea that we are not so sure about we say "hypothesis".

If you are so unsure, why claim with such assurance? It's an interesting defense to say, I made a point but you should know I'm never convinced of my own point. I mean, sure, that's what we're all saying. MY point in this regard was to say I think that FTL is a barrier stands on weak assumptions based on current evidence that will be eventually shown to be inaccurate, or better put - naive, I believe. I really cannot believe this is actually any kind of limitation, maybe for conventional travel but there will be something that breaks convention that we will discover eventually.

Hic Rhodos ... What is the title of that documentation or where can I find it?

Names would be nice.

I don't keep libraries of the things I read for reference in these sorts of discussions. Sorry.

 

[raxo2222]

I doubt the field in which such a travel is made possible would allow this. All within the field is accelerated/decelerated and the field cannot be partially opened (no windows).

It could be acceleration done in old fashioned way like bussard ramjet or antimatter engines.
10% - 90% speed of light is good enough for some destruction too.

Also reactionless drives or something like that could be possible too, if not then black hole matter to energy converter - dump all waste heat in one direction, and use generated electricity to fire powerful laser.
All those photons will push your ship - I'm not sure how close to speed of light it can accelerate, especially if you scoop matter along way.

 

[Thunderbrd]

It could be acceleration done in old fashioned way like bussard ramjet or antimatter engines.
10% - 90% speed of light is good enough for some destruction too.

Indeed, of the ship as well when it encounters a fairly stationary small object. Without energy fields, I doubt any material based anti-friction surface would be truly frictionless enough to manage anything near lightspeed without self-destruction.

Also reactionless drives or something like that could be possible too, if not then black hole matter to energy converter - dump all waste heat in one direction, and use generated electricity to fire powerful laser.

My first inclination was to think you were talking about a laser plough, so to speak, the laser pointed forwards to clear the path of debris. Interesting idea but of course you would never be able to exceed the speed of the laser itself and we're trying to accelerate past light speed so... But that does bring up an interesting point I'm curious about in our own current physics models... if a body that generates light is in fast enough motion, does that make the light it projects move even faster still?

However, you're talking in terms of using the photons to accelerate the vessel and sure you could get close to FTL that way before some encountered space shrapnel destroys you. The light sails may be able to do something like this as well supposedly.

 

[tmv]

It's not all from one person. Do you even pay attention to UFOlogy in the least?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

Rocketry, for example.

This would be a very involved conspiracy. The Chinese developed the first precursors of rocketry in the 13th century. Further improvements were made over the centurys, until e.g. the British had a form of rocket artillery in the Napoleonic Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congreve_rocket). Then there are the Russian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky) and American (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard) theorists, and then rocketry "took off" in the 1920s and 1930s.

If you are so unsure, why claim with such assurance?

Because conviction does not replace truth. What we are convinced of is the way of gaining knowledge, not so much the knowledge itself. The theories we have are just stepping stones, but very valuable ones. And then there are the ideas that failed to become theories, or were once theories and are now superseded (in the latter case they can still be useful if you don't leave the domain of their validity - Newtonian Mechanics is enough to get to the moon, and as far as I know this is what was used to calculate the rocket trajectories during the Apollo Program.

The difference between conviction / confirmation and the truth is rather well elaborated here: https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/08/story-of-us.html (especially in the currently later parts, that is Chapter 7 and 8, although the earlier parts are more or less "required reading" for the later parts). It is a bit long, though.

I don't keep libraries of the things I read for reference in these sorts of discussions. Sorry.

I'm sorry as well, especially since I don't know of any scientist who really makes such claims.

 

[Thunderbrd]

This would be a very involved conspiracy. The Chinese developed the first precursors of rocketry in the 13th century. Further improvements were made over the centurys, until e.g. the British had a form of rocket artillery in the Napoleonic Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congreve_rocket). Then there are the Russian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky) and American (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard) theorists, and then rocketry "took off" in the 1920s and 1930s.

It was an example. Advances may have been attributable to back engineering. However, the flying saucer program we took from them and shared efforts with Canada in further developing might have been a better example. Not exactly conspiracy when its public news.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

You're suggesting that the only reason for many reports that are out there are because others like them have been previously? Possibly. But I don't think there are that many people in high end professional positions that are so desperate for attention as to copycat just for a moment under public scrutiny and ridicule.

 

[Toffer90]

But that does bring up an interesting point I'm curious about in our own current physics models... if a body that generates light is in fast enough motion, does that make the light it projects move even faster still?

In theory all light would move faster relative to the object that is moving at light speed, the theory of relativity states that light move at the speed of light relative to any object regardless of the objects speed and direction.
Light observed by the object would appear normal as if the object was standing still, while the rest of the universe would move at 2x speed as if the object moving at the speed of light was actually moving at half the speed of light, the voyage between two planets with life on it could take let's say 100 earth years for the people living on each of the planets, while the people on the ship would only have aged 50 years, so the traveler is traveling very fast, but the rest of the universe would not see it as FTL travel.

The theory is that light is always a light speed faster than anything else.
This is why you would travel forward in time if traveling at speeds comparable to the speed of light.
If you travel at 9x the speed of light, each hour traveled would have been 10 hours for everyone else that was not part of the ships crew.
I don't think the ship would to others appear to move slowly though (if it was possible to observe something moving that fast), such speeds would distort space itself around the object, as if the ship was not moving in a straight line but was moving real quick past the observer and slightly in the wrong direction all the time. One way to imagine it is that it is impossible for outsiders to pinpoint where between start and destination a vessel that is traveling at FTL actually is.

It's real topsy turvy to think about really, I won't claim to understand it, or that what I said there is correct even.

PS. May be that I'm just sitting on outdated and/or incorrect information I picked up on this subject in the 90's.

 

[raxo2222]

Indeed, of the ship as well when it encounters a fairly stationary small object. Without energy fields, I doubt any material based anti-friction surface would be truly frictionless enough to manage anything near lightspeed without self-destruction.

My first inclination was to think you were talking about a laser plough, so to speak, the laser pointed forwards to clear the path of debris. Interesting idea but of course you would never be able to exceed the speed of the laser itself and we're trying to accelerate past light speed so... But that does bring up an interesting point I'm curious about in our own current physics models... if a body that generates light is in fast enough motion, does that make the light it projects move even faster still?

However, you're talking in terms of using the photons to accelerate the vessel and sure you could get close to FTL that way before some encountered space shrapnel destroys you. The light sails may be able to do something like this as well supposedly.

Even if weaponizing relativity, astrophysics and cosmology (Big Rip, false vacuum collapse that I linked before) isn't that easy, you can always weaponize nano(femto/pico/atto)technology or biotechnology - like viruses, parasites or bigger animals.

Also 100 km sized asteroid travelling at measly 10% speed of light won't be destroyed too quickly, especially if it has to travel less than 1000 light years to target.
Also such asteroid could act as shield for relativistic ship.

Space warfare of all kinds is common topic in science fiction - even Star Wars had moon sized planet destroyer.
Also there is a lot of space warfare techs in Caveman2Cosmos - or at least this stuff could be weaponized.

Chernobyl compared to this is absolutely nothing.
You could cause mass extinctions just by not being careful.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Even if weaponizing relativity, astrophysics and cosmology (Big Rip, false vacuum collapse that I linked before) isn't that easy, you can always weaponize nano(femto/pico/atto)technology or biotechnology - like viruses, parasites or bigger animals.

And how would we know the difference between such an act being taken on Earth vs something natural? Why are you assuming everything outside of the planet would automatically want to destroy us without being at least potentially countered by those who wouldn't? Seems a fairly human dim view on intelligent life based on our understanding of ourselves alone.

Also 100 km sized asteroid travelling at measly 10% speed of light won't be destroyed too quickly, especially if it has to travel less than 1000 light years to target.
Also such asteroid could act as shield for relativistic ship.

Space warfare of all kinds is common topic in science fiction - even Star Wars had moon sized planet destroyer.
Also there is a lot of space warfare techs in Caveman2Cosmos - or at least this stuff could be weaponized.

Chernobyl compared to this is absolutely nothing.
You could cause mass extinctions just by not being careful.

True. Which is why I would assume that there are factions watching over us, in part offering some protection and security we don't even realize we need. Much like how there are natural forces that have ensured we aren't regularly destroyed by random events - I mean, we ARE, just rather infrequently if it weren't for certain factors being in place like the moon's gravitational pull and so on.

I mean given the potential for world destruction that exists, including from our own hands, it's amazing we've even made it this far. It's like we have guardian angels or something. I often marvel that I made it past high school given the amount of times I should've died due to something stupid I was up to then.

 

[raxo2222]

And how would we know the difference between such an act being taken on Earth vs something natural? Why are you assuming everything outside of the planet would automatically want to destroy us without being at least potentially countered by those who wouldn't? Seems a fairly human dim view on intelligent life based on our understanding of ourselves alone.

Well on one hand we have Utopia Destiny tech in Transhuman era, that could prevent hypothetical destruction - deliberate or not.
On other hand we have techs, that can destroy planets/solar systems/galaxies/universes if used for evil or just improperly handled.

That is something makes aliens incapable of incompetence, greed and psychopathy.
This could be switched on demand, since you still can wage wars (or can we remove military techs and units from galactic era and later?)
Utopia Destiny looks like good tech for this - could obsolete all violent crimes, if not all of them.
This tech also could allow building, that crashes down crime and makes easy to catch baddies.

Also that ball of doom could be billion years old - someone fired it in random direction because why not.

Also 99.9999% benevolence and 99.9999% antiterrorism efficiency means, that eventually someone manages to destroy random planet/solar system/galaxy/universe depending if there is no upper bound for tech development.
So it seems like you would like 10% (or 10x as still its rare) higher apocalypse chance if this means world filled with aliens like in your typical game of Stellaris.
You don't have to be evil psychopath to cause apocalypse, if you have powerful tech with you.

So if guns and cars were idiotproof like alien tech, then we would get like 1 car or gun related death per year world wide?

That is statistics are second deadliest $%^$# in space - Newton and sheer inertia is fun when you have relativistic shrapnel flying trough galaxy.
Also someone could pull off that as well.
Accelerate it in intercluster void (so nothing destroys it) right into wormhole, that sends it in collision course with some planet.

 

[Esfera]

Why are you assuming everything outside of the planet would automatically want to destroy us without being at least potentially countered by those who wouldn't? Seems a fairly human dim view on intelligent life based on our understanding of ourselves alone.

This is something that always strikes me in the sci-fi novels, crappy pop-sci books and movies that use such troope.
Are the lazy scriptwriters really trying to make me believe that an alien civilization that is capable of faster-than-light travel/Dyson's Eternal Intelligence/Infinite Subjetive Time/time travel/wormhole travel/[insert more technobabble here] really needs to plunder us for our resources? What about the trillions of asteroids with water, nuclear fuel and precious metals that remain intact? What about the millions of lifeless planets with a composition similar to Earth? Come on.

Aliens, if they exist, probably have mindset similar to the one of stoics, cynics (in a philosophical sense), jain monks or buddhists have here in Earth.
Aliens have probably overcomed our mindset obsessed with reproduction and passing our genes into the next generation. They probably don't care about genetics, they probably care about what Richard Dawkins called 'memetics' (information) and Terence McKenna called 'novelty' (singularities).
The reason why we humans are so centered around obtaining wealth and power (even using violent or sneaky methods) is because that is considered adventageous when it comes down to having more babies and preventing them from dying, thus, our behaviour and our psychology, despite our (relatively) advanced consciousness, is centered around stealing things, slaving or eating the 'lesser' beings and destroying the environment for additional resources.
A Type +3 Civilization with unlimited resources, eternal-bliss, a post-scarcity economy and infinite subjetive time probably don't give a damn about that kinda' stuff. So why plunder the Earth and kill its lifeforms at all?

I think that aliens, if they even exist, don't give a damn about our existence as they see us as biology-driven brutes and delusional heathens, they just don't care about our existence yet, they see no reason to attack us and they see no reason to help us, just as we humans don't see the point in trying to contact or destroy ants and wasps. So, they probably have a passive and laissez-faire approach when it comes to us.
Who knows, maybe aliens don't exist in the same universe as us and we live in a simulation after Omega Point was reached as that is a good solution for the Fermi Paradox, so yeah, life is pretty much a videogame, does anyone know the cheat code for money? It will come handy

 

[raxo2222]

Well I didn't say, that most aliens are evil.
I said, that even 0.1% of them being evil or just careless means big trouble for civilizations, that didn't reached Galactic era.

 

[Thunderbrd]

That is something makes aliens incapable of incompetence, greed and psychopathy.

It's called evolution. We're headed there eventually ourselves if we can survive who we are now. And if we don't make this evolutionary step, we're probably going to destroy ourselves with the tech we unlock. With great power comes great responsibility so it would be natural that as a civilization advances in knowledge, it also matures emotionally as a people. Just imagine how much more possible these character flaws are to address on a massive level when we have a depth of cyberactivity and genetic reprogramming. It's kinda scary how capable we are becoming with this technology to truly eradicate certain negative traits and consciously guide our own evolution. They've already been through all that or they wouldn't be here visiting... at least I would think in most cases anyhow. We'd be endlessly fascinating barbarians to such a species. Kinda like watching warring ants in an ant farm battle it out. We make for good television. lol. Lots of drama they'd have advanced way past.

Also, all your same arguments suggest we should have had some kind of random nuclear attack by now but the fact that the most dangerous technologies are not generally accessible by the individual keeps that from being a likelihood. Same kind of rules would apply to anything even more powerful and advanced. Only the responsible folks are given responsibility by any rational society.

So if guns and cars were idiotproof like alien tech, then we would get like 1 car or gun related death per year world wide?

We're certainly headed in that direction. Cars will be driving themselves soon and dangerous weaponry will be under very tight control. These issues are current for us at our stage of development. Probably won't be too prolific a problem in generations to come once fully addressed by... advancements in technology and system control factors... all of which a spacefaring civ would be as light years ahead of where we are just as they are other technologies.

Aliens, if they exist, probably have mindset similar to the one of stoics, cynics (in a philosophical sense), jain monks or buddhists have here in Earth.

Many of the Eastern martial arts traditions teach that people from the stars brought their knowledge to them for this very purpose, to help us evolve into something more enlightened and peaceful.

All in all, great points made. Scarcity is the big reason for human conflict. Get beyond that, who needs to cause problems for oneself and others?