This assumes an awful lot. For one thing, it assumes that the Singularity is inevitable for every civilization.

Now, whether or not it’s inevitable for humans is somewhat debateable, though I’m sure the majority of humans would eventually upload.

However, humans are very prone to existential crises, to fearing death that is not immediately imminent, etc. These are traits that last I checked, we’ve no scientific proof are common outside our own species here on Earth (especially the existential crises).

So basically – to borrow a term from the other posters here – you’re being highly anthrocentric, assuming that ALL species that gain enough intelligence to have say, computers and radios and television, are going to inevitably head towards Singularity.

How do we know that they won’t be far more passive and accepting when it comes to each individual’s death? Or that they won’t be ruled by a group that feels such a way, and refuses to allow Singularity to happen?

And how can you be so sure that a species can’t technologically stagnate before it ever reaches Singularity?

I say this precisely because of your choice of words: “post-Singularity”. Even technical sophistication beyond our own does not equal Singularity.

“But if it survived its own Singularity, it must have created and executed a successful version of Friendliness as all unFriendly civilizations are doomed.”

Perhaps I should be reading here more often, as I’m not entirely sure what “Friendliness” means, though I get the implication that it is a Friendly AI?

In any case, once again you assume things that might not be true of non-human species. Maybe they don’t have true AI. Even if they can copy their brains, who says they need true AI? As I recall, true AI is essentially life in digital form (save possibly for the lack of reproduction in some cases), what if the idea of it creeps them out too much?Or what if it just never occured to them to create AIs?

“These Friendly aliens capable of reaching us would have means and the will to save humans from disease, fear and scarcity.”

You assume these hypothetical aliens would

a.) be able to find us because of “post-Singularity” tech that EVEN WE do not have yet. Who says intelligent aliens would be as advanced as us, let alone more so? There’s absolutely positively no guarantee of that.

b.)That they won’t be xenophobic. Maybe they like each other, but they fear us (hell, even we’ve always speculated, since just about the time we concieved of space aliens, the fictional Martians would be conquerers and destroyers; even today, SF is full of nasty alien species trying to conquer us, the Stargate series alone has had the Replicators, the Goa’uld in their many factions, the Ori, etc., and that’s a series that also has had almost countless peaceful extraterrestrial societies as well, from the Nox and the Ascended Ancients to simple villagers who’ve settled on some distant planet). Or maybe, just maybe, they don’t give a flying crap what happens to anybody but themselves. Once again you assume that not only would they be social amongst themselves, they would also have the human-like urge to share the wealth with other species… which isn’t exactly universal even in humans, in case you hadn’t noticed.

c.)Save us from scarcity of what? Food, water, shelter? Hell, WE could do that, but we haven’t. Give me one good reason another species would have to bother, other than “out of the goodness of their 10-chambered hearts”

d.)Disease? Please. Ever read War of the Worlds? OK, so it’s old SF. But the point of the power of viruses and bacteria in bringing down the mighty and not-previously-exposed might well have merit. We ourselves haven’t defeated the HIV yet and even in your own situation the aliens have reached Singularity… meaning no medical research anymore, since there would be no bodies to take care of! And that’s assuming they’d be able to make heads or tails out of our anatomy and biology in the first place. Or, once again, CARE.

e.)Right. Because irrational human emotions haphazzardly evolved over the course of millions upon millions of years can be erased as soon as we find out that not only are we not alone, but the other people are smarter, better, AND immortal! Fear comes in many shades, my friend, and shaking existing concepts of the universe right upside down is going to CAUSE fear, not erase it, at least in a great number of people, it would. And what about the fear that hey, even humans aren’t this nice to each other what evidence do we have that the aliens are that much better than us socially? And of course, there’s a great number of other insecurities that are common to humans. Fear is natural. It evolved to help keep us alive, and is rooted deep in the lower brain, in the fastest, oldest parts of our minds. Any species that could “get rid of fear” would have to do it chemically, in short, and that would CREEP ME OUT, I dunno about you. In any case, even if the old fears go away, new ones will pop up, or perhaps the old ones will irrationally come back; trust me, humans can always find something to fear.

“But since death still exists in our world we’re left with two possibilities. Alien civilizations exist(ed) somewhere but have collapsed or they are stuck in either pre- or post-Singularity unFriendliness. The other possibility is that humans are simply the first intelligent beings in the universe.”

Uh, what about “we’re not alone, but we’re the most advanced”?

What about “Singularity has never happened before in a race that could reach us this soon”?

What about “Their methods of reaching Singularity won’t work on us”?

What about “They don’t give a crap about anybody else”?

That’s at least four other possibilities.

Somebody lacks analytical imagination, methinks. :P

” In either case, there’s little benefit to searching for aliens even if they exist and are intelligent.”

See above. Also, the more we find out about the universe, the more knowledgeable we’ll be about it, and that can never hurt, can it?

Also, as noted, if it weren’t for SETI a lot of the advancements in radio telescopes would not be in existence right now.

“If it’s safe to meet them, they will contact us first.”

What if it’s safe, but FTL is completely impossible for them, as there is a great deal of evidence to support? Hell, what if they are so fragile outside of their own environment – and so specialized within it – that they don’t dare leave it? We’re pretty good at compensating when we go out to space, but even we haven’t yet managed to perfect long-term space travel that’s biologically safe for us, what if their needs are far greater than ours and they figured there was just no point? And what if they’re intelligent but have never had a need for radio waves and thus have no idea we exist?

Again: you are very lacking in analytical imagination.

“If it’s not safe to meet them (or their by-products), we will probably be prevented from being aware of their existence anyway.”

In what world does that sentence make any kind of sense?

http://www.planetary.org/news/2004/0323_Can_a_Stars_Glow_Reveal_an_Advanced.html
This says that 33 out of 539 old stars surveyed appear to have a dyson sphere of unknown origin. Is there more current information about this?

And the Von Neumann theory is complete garbage.
Any intelligence in some kind of technological free-for-all would destroy itself with land bound replicators long before interstellar replicators.

A Von Neumann device would never be sent on purpose… way too much information sent back. (probably a hypertelescope and controlled devices would be common.) A Von Neumann device would be reckless, yet pointless.

BUT, anyone here will be able to build one in 50 years?? So, I will be able to send out interstellar spaceships all willy nilly, no questions asked? They would be recognized as a threat and destroyed immediately. Uncontrollable self replicating spaceships all sending back pirate broadcasts.. Yea, that sounds like it would get far.

We are self-replicating machines, remember? Along with the I-don’t-know-how-many-zillion bacteria? And the dogs, cats, cows, grass, trees, bushes, squirrels, fish, frogs, mosquitoes, dragonflies, beetles, et cetera, et cetera ad nauseam?

The assumptions about technology are a bit strong as well. Far too many for me to be comfortable with. We don’t even know if self replicating machines are possible, which makes it seem a bit odd to dismiss intelligent alien life for any reason relating to it.

All in all, I have to say that this struck me as very similar to religious debate. Take unproven assumptions, and then build a wonderfully logical structure on top of it. Which is great if the assumption is true, but if it’s not, the entire logic structure falls down as well. Which is the main reason why scientific experimentation has produced so much, while pure philosophy moves into the realm of the practical at only rare occasion. Thought experiments can be fun, but in the end they’re worthless without experimentation. Which is what seti is doing. I think they’re methods are a bit flawed, but I applaud anyone for actually testing their ideas rather than assuming it’s right because it seems good.