Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Is Atheism A Threat To Humanity Due To Its Lower Birth Rates? Religion Often Requires Couples To Have Children, But As Religion Loses Its Grip On The People, They Tend To Have Fewer Children Than Required To Maintain The Population.

    THE ANSWER IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN OTHER POSTERS SUGGEST.

    I’ll try to do it justice.

    The answer is yes, that it’s correlative. Empirically, yes in the aggregate atheists have fewer children.  And yes, its partly causal.

    1) Reproduction is losing it’s economic utility as a guarantee of old age security.

    2) Consumer capitalism raises the cost of creating ‘middle class and working class children’ and so birth rates decline along with industrialization.

    3) Atheism is highly correlative with education, and education correlative with income, and income correlative with decreased reproduction. (Children are a net negative on career development because they are time consuming. Or conversely, careerism in two income household deprives both individuals of the time necessary for child rearing. )

    4) Prettier women have more children, married women have more children, women who stay at home have more children.  Less attractive women have fewer children. Unmarried women have fewer children. Women who work have fewer children.  This is all just data.  We have put women into the work force and decreased their rate of breeding RELATIVE to the rates of breeding in other civilizations. (This was most evident in russian and japan, both of whom are facing serious long term economic problems because of it.  You cannot easily have both the employment of women AND paid retirement and health care. At least, that’s what it looks like.)

    5) With the advent of redistribution, loss of male property rights, and child support and financial support, Women are “marrying the state”, or “marrying the state via child support”. Both of these do statistically decrease reproduction, as they also render the males economically not viable for other women. (That’s the data. Sorry if it’s unpleasant.)

    6) The lower classes are dramatically shifting out of monogamy into serial monogamy.  Humans are naturally serially monogamous in tribal life. Monogamy is economically competitive, but not natural to man – we evolved to manage relationships that last on the order of four years – long enough for a child to walk with a migrating tribe.  The moral prescription for monogamy, and therefor for higher reproduction rates associated with monogamy, was caused by (a) the agrarian mode of production and the family farming unit (b) the politically dangerous problem of single men unable to have access to sex – the source of most revolutions. Monogamy was imposed by religious leadership for these reasons – although we are still trying I think to link all that history together. It looks like it’s a natural evolution, not just the copying of an idea worldwide.

    CONCLUSION
    1) The strain on the rest of the planet’s biomass by our enormous population is pretty severe. It’s possible we’re more than twice the population that the planet can handle.  We do not need more people.  There are no pollution problems. There are few resource problems. There is a population problem.
    2) We have created an economic and political system of intergenerational redistribution that requires constant growth and constant new generations. 
    3) Consumer capitalism seems to put a cap on uncontrolled population expansion.

    So it isn’t clear that we need to increase population. In fact, just the opposite. And we could do so, but our current system of redistribution is a system of dependencies that we can’t likely get out of without a political crisis.

    So the glass is half full (declining population) and half empty (we are dependent upon population growth that the earth cannot sustain, and which causes political infighting.).

    In these cases Atheism is correlative with lower reproduction in the upper classes, and CAUSAL with reproduction in the lower classes.

    I hope this makes sense.

    Curt

    https://www.quora.com/Is-atheism-a-threat-to-humanity-due-to-its-lower-birth-rates-Religion-often-requires-couples-to-have-children-but-as-religion-loses-its-grip-on-the-people-they-tend-to-have-fewer-children-than-required-to-maintain-the-population

  • Why Are Gay People Asking For The Right To Marry? If It Is Legal Stuff They Are Asking For, Can’t They Go To Some Separate Setup For Partners?

    1) Corporeal Assets. Because “marriage” under the corporeal state is in fact a CORPORATION, with two shareholders, and all property not specifically set aside in a prenuptial agreement is contributed to, and an asset of, the CORPORATION upon creation of the marriage corporation.  A marriage corporation is a significant benefit to those who enter into them. Economically, a marriage corporation is much more advantageous than an living as an individual (sole proprietorship). Not the least of which is because of the increased credit that is available, and the decreased statistical risk that married couples exhibit.

    2) Parity Membership. (status equality) Because homosexuality is instinctively ostracized in most cultures, and people don’t like being ostracized.  First as a ‘defect’ and secondly as a ‘immoral corruption’.  It appears that homosexuality is an in-utero genetically caused ‘defect’, that ‘defect’ has no negative consequences OTHER than those that derive from our instinctual biases. Secondly, as an in-utero defect, it is not a CHOICE and therefore not a matter of ‘immoral corruptoin’ or a danger to those who are ‘normal’.  As such we have enough knowledge to counter our instinctual biases, and enough knowledge to abandon our cultural biases.

    As such, no longer deserving stigma, homosexuals, as any healthy social human, desire ‘acceptance’ (to receive positive status signals) in the society.

    3) Binding commitment.  Homosexuals demonstrate high levels of promiscuity – and unlike heterosexuals, whose promiscuity creates the problem of children without economic support – there is little harm to it.  As such the function of a marriage corporation creates a greater economic incentive in support of preventing promiscuity and preserving both the economic and emotional investments we make.

    4) Pledge of commitment: The promise of a marriage will tend to give each of us access to superior mates (yes it does).  Without this pledge of commitment homosexuals do not have the way demonstrate their commitment to quality partners.  Trust is a difficult thing to come by.

    5) Conformity to norms. In an effort to obtain the right of marriage the homosexual community has ‘reigned in’ its more extravagant public behavior, which has reduced the level of objection prevoiusly held by moderates.  Further, unlike women’s rights activists and racial activists, homosexuals are not asking for redistribution benefits, OR for other special rights – other than the questionable ‘hate crimes’ that is already in force.

    RESISTANCE BY RELIGIOUS GROUPS
    6) Religions are the last resistance to homosexual marriage.  This is partly for doctrinal reasons, and partly because the gay community aligned with the feminist, and left political wings, and in doing so, added to what religious groups consider an attack on the nuclear family, on traditional male and female roles, to the status signals available to those who fulfill traditional male and female roles – and from their perspective, an attack on civilization itself. This voting block is both activist and uniform, and provides a resistance to both the expansionary state and to culture.  For this reason the real opposition for homosexuals is in fact, organized religion, because organized religion is the source of the nuclear family’s traditional moral legitimacy.


    I hope that is a sufficient answer for you. Although I did have to rush the end a bit.   – Cheers.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-gay-people-asking-for-the-right-to-marry-If-it-is-legal-stuff-they-are-asking-for-cant-they-go-to-some-separate-setup-for-partners

  • What Do Foreigners Find Most Annoying About Americans?

    GENERAL NOTE ON AMERICAN IGNORANCE AND ANNOYANCE
    1) Our nationalism was intentionally created in order to fight the world wars, then to win the cold war against the plague of international communism. Americans are actually naturally insular.  THe problem is that we’re stuck with running this empire that we inherited from the brits, and the europeans won’t carry their own water.

    2)  Americans are wealthy enough so that even our ignorant lower classes can afford to travel. Like every other culture, our ignorant lower classes outnumber middle and upper middle classes.

    3) I think our ignorance is not the issue that’s so frustrating – the entire world has the same distribution of ignorance in their societies. But Americans have the highest measurable CONFIDENCE in the world (an intentional goal of our education system).  And its the combination of average ignorance and overstated confidence that’s so annoying.

    Heck. I find it annoying.  ;/

    https://www.quora.com/What-do-foreigners-find-most-annoying-about-Americans

  • Is Atheism A Threat To Humanity Due To Its Lower Birth Rates? Religion Often Requires Couples To Have Children, But As Religion Loses Its Grip On The People, They Tend To Have Fewer Children Than Required To Maintain The Population.

    THE ANSWER IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN OTHER POSTERS SUGGEST.

    I’ll try to do it justice.

    The answer is yes, that it’s correlative. Empirically, yes in the aggregate atheists have fewer children.  And yes, its partly causal.

    1) Reproduction is losing it’s economic utility as a guarantee of old age security.

    2) Consumer capitalism raises the cost of creating ‘middle class and working class children’ and so birth rates decline along with industrialization.

    3) Atheism is highly correlative with education, and education correlative with income, and income correlative with decreased reproduction. (Children are a net negative on career development because they are time consuming. Or conversely, careerism in two income household deprives both individuals of the time necessary for child rearing. )

    4) Prettier women have more children, married women have more children, women who stay at home have more children.  Less attractive women have fewer children. Unmarried women have fewer children. Women who work have fewer children.  This is all just data.  We have put women into the work force and decreased their rate of breeding RELATIVE to the rates of breeding in other civilizations. (This was most evident in russian and japan, both of whom are facing serious long term economic problems because of it.  You cannot easily have both the employment of women AND paid retirement and health care. At least, that’s what it looks like.)

    5) With the advent of redistribution, loss of male property rights, and child support and financial support, Women are “marrying the state”, or “marrying the state via child support”. Both of these do statistically decrease reproduction, as they also render the males economically not viable for other women. (That’s the data. Sorry if it’s unpleasant.)

    6) The lower classes are dramatically shifting out of monogamy into serial monogamy.  Humans are naturally serially monogamous in tribal life. Monogamy is economically competitive, but not natural to man – we evolved to manage relationships that last on the order of four years – long enough for a child to walk with a migrating tribe.  The moral prescription for monogamy, and therefor for higher reproduction rates associated with monogamy, was caused by (a) the agrarian mode of production and the family farming unit (b) the politically dangerous problem of single men unable to have access to sex – the source of most revolutions. Monogamy was imposed by religious leadership for these reasons – although we are still trying I think to link all that history together. It looks like it’s a natural evolution, not just the copying of an idea worldwide.

    CONCLUSION
    1) The strain on the rest of the planet’s biomass by our enormous population is pretty severe. It’s possible we’re more than twice the population that the planet can handle.  We do not need more people.  There are no pollution problems. There are few resource problems. There is a population problem.
    2) We have created an economic and political system of intergenerational redistribution that requires constant growth and constant new generations. 
    3) Consumer capitalism seems to put a cap on uncontrolled population expansion.

    So it isn’t clear that we need to increase population. In fact, just the opposite. And we could do so, but our current system of redistribution is a system of dependencies that we can’t likely get out of without a political crisis.

    So the glass is half full (declining population) and half empty (we are dependent upon population growth that the earth cannot sustain, and which causes political infighting.).

    In these cases Atheism is correlative with lower reproduction in the upper classes, and CAUSAL with reproduction in the lower classes.

    I hope this makes sense.

    Curt

    https://www.quora.com/Is-atheism-a-threat-to-humanity-due-to-its-lower-birth-rates-Religion-often-requires-couples-to-have-children-but-as-religion-loses-its-grip-on-the-people-they-tend-to-have-fewer-children-than-required-to-maintain-the-population

  • Can Anarchy Be Feasibly Set Up?

    THANK YOU FOR ASKING ME TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION

    I’ll try to do give the the best answer that is available to us today.

    1) If we define anarchy as the absence of RULES (MORALS AND NORMS), then no – without morals and norms humans cannot cooperate.
    2) If we define anarchy as the absence of LAWS and JUDGES then no. Without contracts and the common law support of contracts, then no, not in any meaningful sense.
    3) If we define anarchy as the absence of GOVERNMENT (meaning group of people who coordinate investments in commons then possibly anarchy can exist, but under very constrained and simple conditions. Realistically it would be very hard for these people to compete economically with people from other groups.
    4) If we define anarchy as the absence of LAW MAKERS then almost certainly. The common law alone is sufficient for law making.
    5) If we define anarchy as the absence of an abstract corporation we call the ‘STATE’, then absolutely certainly. In fact, when people complain about government they generally are complaining about the behavior of individuals in a monopoly (government) who are insulated from competition, and whose members also for a bureaucracy that is insulated from competition, and who, as members of a bureaucracy, pursue their own interests. 

    Human societies employ at least these five sets of institutions and by and large, the first three are necessary, and the second two are not.  The question is whether in practice a group could compete effectively without the abstract state and the ability to issue commands (we call them laws, but that’s just a way of trying to give commands the legitimacy of natural laws to what are just political ‘commands’.) 

    So, a homogenous body of people who are not very different in character, belief, genetics, status, and wealth can quite easily create anarchy by writing a constitution with just one a half a dozen rules in it, and then hopefully finding judges that will rule according to those rules and no others.

    A government lf laws then, is quite possible.  A government of men isn’t necessary.  And it’s what our founding fathers were trying to prevent.

    Didn’t work well though. Civil war and all that….

    REGARDING “IN A PARTICULAR WORLD”

    Among a population of people with common heritage, mythology, manners, ethics and morals, who are arguably closely related, it is entirely feasible to draft a constitutions and to supply all services by private institutions.  The problem is whether that LACK of a constitutional government creates an opportunity for a private organization to functionally serve the same purpose, and in that same capacity, eventually develop the monopolistic self serviig bureaucracy that evolves the ability to write laws (issue commands) 

    The general argument in favor of minimal government is that some form of government (weak monarchy for example that ‘owns’ the institutions of dispute resolution) is necessary simply to provide competition against other private organizations that would attempt to function as governments.   I do not believe it is possible to counter this argument in any way – it’s quite sound in both theory and practice. ( Although I’m not going to sidetrack into that kind of depth at the moment. )

    IN A BROADER WORLD
    The anarchic research program commonly referred to as “Anarcho Capitalism” has developed a set of solutions to the problem of institutions, using competing private insurance companies rather than public monopolies.  However, this ‘private government’ still does not solve the problem of heterogenous polities (people with different, competing, and irreconcilable differences.).  Some of us are working on that problem.  We tend to call it some variation of ‘contractual’ government.  Meaning that groups make contracts between competing classes rather than allow one class to dominate another class by majority rule. 

    There is no functional reason why this solution would not work even for large heterogenous polities.

    So there are at least two circumstances under which Anarchy is possible, if we define anarchy as the absence of a monopolistic bureaucracy, but not if we define anarchy as the absence of institutions, rules or law. 

    Fundamentally speaking, it is illogical to suggest that a “polyopoly” of property rights and definitions is possible since a homogenous definition of property right is necessary in order to logically resolve disputes over rights, obligations and conflicts.  If there is a monopoly of property rights at any point, that monopolistic definition, in practice, is the premise for all law within that group of people.  Therefore even without the institutions of administrative government, any monopoly of property rights is in fact ‘government’.  Everything else is just procedure.

    That logic may be hard to follow.  But it is what it is.  🙂

    Curt

    https://www.quora.com/Can-anarchy-be-feasibly-set-up

  • Why Did Stephen Hawking Cancel His 2013 Trip To Israel?

    Noam Chomsky, a radical leftist, a man filled with hatred, the only philosopher supporting left intellectuals, and perhaps one of the most immoral men in the world, convinced Hawking not to go.   

    This is neither a criticism of Hawking, nor support for israeli policy, but a statement about Chomsky’s career as a purveyor of destructive political ideology.

    It’s also proof that most intellectuals are terribly incompetent outside of their direct discipline.  And it’s further evidence that academia is insuated from and fails to understand basic economics, basic geopolitics, and have unfortunately adopted not the skeptical empiricism that science recommends, but instead, much of the ideological platform of the postmodernist movement, and it’s intentional misrepresentation of the nature of man.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Stephen-Hawking-cancel-his-2013-trip-to-Israel

  • Why Did Stephen Hawking Cancel His 2013 Trip To Israel?

    Noam Chomsky, a radical leftist, a man filled with hatred, the only philosopher supporting left intellectuals, and perhaps one of the most immoral men in the world, convinced Hawking not to go.   

    This is neither a criticism of Hawking, nor support for israeli policy, but a statement about Chomsky’s career as a purveyor of destructive political ideology.

    It’s also proof that most intellectuals are terribly incompetent outside of their direct discipline.  And it’s further evidence that academia is insuated from and fails to understand basic economics, basic geopolitics, and have unfortunately adopted not the skeptical empiricism that science recommends, but instead, much of the ideological platform of the postmodernist movement, and it’s intentional misrepresentation of the nature of man.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Stephen-Hawking-cancel-his-2013-trip-to-Israel

  • Is Private Property More Natural Than Government? Why Or Why Not? And What Are The Policy Implications?

    AN INTERESTING QUESTION – THANK YOU FOR THE REQUEST TO ANSWER IT.  I’ll try to give you the best answer currently available.

    “We have laws because we have property, we do not have property because we have laws” – Frederic Bastiat.

    PROPERTY AS A SPECTRUM
    We define private property as something over which one EXPECTS TO HAVE exclusive “monopoly” control, and common family property as something over which we expect to have limited control and consumption, and shareholder property something over which one expects to have LIMITED control and prohibition from consumption, and ‘the commons’ over which one expects to be PROHIBITED from consumption and or exclusive control, but where membership is dynamic.

    NATURE
    Many animals treat their nests, stores of food, mates and offspring as property. Humans have more complex memories, and can put objects to a multiplicity of uses.  And humans can learn to specialize in the use of certain resources to produce certain increasingly complex goods and services.

    The first value of memory is to observe resources and avoid dangers. But once we have complex memory, and the abilty to locate and store resources, we can create property, and therefore conserve energy by creating stores for  future consumption, and stores for future production.  The human mind is a is a difference engine, but the primary difference it calculates is property: what can I expect to make use of or not make use of, as a member of a family, band, tribe, or society? 

    We can speak. That we can speak and negotiate demonstrates that property is natural. Without property cooperation would be unnecessary. To debate by definition is to acknowledge the existence of property.  And we were able to speak before we were able to form governments.  We were able to trade before we were able to form governments.

    However, just because property is natural to man, and humans can peaceably cooperate by conducting voluntary exchange of property, that does not mean that humans will do the hard work of trying to satisfy the wants of others. Instead, rather than exchange, humans try to harm, steal, commit fraud, commit fraud by omission.  Rather than adhere to agreements as shareholders, humans free-ride, rent-seek, privatize assets and socialize losses.

    So, despite our natural ability to create and use property, and to negotiate exchanges and contracts, we also require the use of third parties to administer conflicts.   We have used tribal headmen, elders, priests, judges for private matters, and politicians, lawyers, advocates, and lawmaking to regulate the process of dispute resolution itself.

    However, rather than justly administer agreements people engage in all possible manner of direct and systemic corruption.  But, rather than enter political agreements honestly, they lie, cheat, defraud, deceive, use incrementalism, use coercion and bribery.

    So, despite our creation of these administrative institutions, we have created the constitutions, rule of law, and a high court so that we may limit the ability of politicians, kings, bureaucrats to conduct thefts of many kinds.  And hold them accountable.  We have enacted democratic processes to remove them from office if they commit these crimes.

    However, rather than adhere to constitutions and rule of law, people undermine the rule of law, buy voters compliance with redistribution and privileges. Threaten to replace judges if they don’t rule in the politician’s favor. 

    So, despite our creation of limits on politicians and law makers, and the bureaucracy, and judges, we must retain our ability to use violence and revolution in order to defend ourselves from those who would seek to live off our efforts rather than administer our efforts.

    Property is the result of memory. Property is necessary to make use of the vicissitudes of time, to store and produce goods. Property is necessaty to uniquely and efficiently calculate uses of resources. Property is necessary to reduce conflict over possible usees even within families and tribes. Property is necessary for the construction a division of knowledge and labor. Without which we cannot specialize, save time, and produce high value goods that make us independent of nature’s bounty.

    Property is prior to government. Government exists to resolve disputes over property.

    As our division of labor increases, it becomes useful to develop additional common property. In a marketplace, competition provides us with incentives to produce better products and services at lower coasts. Competition is the privatization of other people’s assumptions about the opportunities in the market.  However, common property, unlike private property, is hard to protect from privatization, and necessary to protect from competition, which for any commons, is just a theft from those who organize and pay for the commons by those who fail to organize and pay for the commons. In the market competition and privatization are desirable, but in the production of commons competition is an unnecessary cost.  Therefore, the second purpose of government is to allow the formation of commons at a discount by prohibiting privatization of any commons, and preventing free-riding on any commons  by the use of mandatory taxation.

    THE TWO NECESSARY PROPERTIES OF GOVERNMENT
    These are the only two necessary properties of government.  In order to perform these functions any body of people must have a portfolio of property definitions that describe each kind of property on the spectrum from private to commons. Most difficulties arise from the failure for societies to do so. One of the reasons the west was (and partly remains) superior in economic per capita perormance is that more of the property in the civilization is privatized, and therefore available for frictionless use, and therefore as an incentive for individuals to act to better their status.

    CLOSING
    I won’t carry this further for now, and it is a book length topic, but it is probably the most, if not only, accurate description of property and government that you will be able to find, despite extraordinary efforts to research the subject. That is because I’ve tried to articulate the necessary properties of government not the multitude of abuses we can put it to.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-private-property-more-natural-than-government-Why-or-why-not-And-what-are-the-policy-implications

  • What Would Happen If There Were No Money On Earth?

    Believe it or not, this subject has been given quite a bit of treatment in the literature – mostly during the early part of the last century in response to the communist, socialist and fascist movements.

    REALITY:
    Almost everyone, on the planet,  except for perhaps ~500M subsistence farmers would die in the first 30-90 days.  Yes.  Really.  Seriously.

    MONEY
    Money makes planning of complex things possible.
    Humans literally cannot ‘think’ as we understand the term, without numbers, money, property, contracts, credit and interest. Just as drawings and written words help us remember things, numbers help us remember things we could not remember, think about, or compare without them.  Money makes numbers possible to apply to things that are DIFFERENT.  Whereas numbers without  money can only be used for things that are the SAME. As such, we say that money makes it possible to compare objects that are otherwise incommensurable.  Money renders the world commensurable: open to planning and the use of mathematics (measurement and forecasting).

    In practical terms, money and prices form an information system that tells us all what to do in real time in response to what others want and need. It is how we tell each other how to cooperate.  It is the human social system. And the use of that social system, plus the capture of fossile fuel, has taken us out of ignorance and poverty.

    CONVERSELY
    What money and credit have also done is make it possible to breed again up to new malthusian levels. While Malthus was only half right, he was half right. Group selection accomplishes what malthus did not account for.  THe general belief of ‘progressives’ is that technology will ‘save us again’ just like agrarianism, and then pastoralism saved us in the past.  But the truth is we just breed up to these levels again, and reduce ourselves back to poverty.

    The problem then is that we must control our breeding.  And that has been, except for a brief period in china, or the middle ages in England under Manorialism impossible to achieve. Partly because it is so profitable to sell things to people who bear children, and those children as they too mature.

    EXAMPLES
    THe US economy is primarily driven by housing, and the high rate of return on lending for housing, and the large supply of labor jobs for the production of housing. From this perspective, the exceptional nature of the american economy is not the product of ‘democracy’ or innovation, but the product of selling off a continent to waves of immigrants and their offspring, and using the profits from the sale of the (conquered) continent to invest in increasingly complex technologies.

    THe Chinese for example have figured this out and are doing the same thing but moving people from the ‘poor’ village farm to cities where they *hope* the population will be more productive than they were at subsistence farming. China can do this bcause it adopted consumer capitalism (money, prices and interest) and abandoned communism (no money, no prices, and no interest). 

    The problem other countries face (India and say, Ukraine) is india is so pervasively corrupt that it’s not possible to create infrastructure without privatization of the investment through corruption, and the population is still expanding unsustainably in a dirty and hot environment.  THe problem Ukraine faces, is that it cannot play ‘china’ because the lower levels of government are so corrupt and the country sees no demand for its currency, so the government cannot issue credit, and therefore the people remain poor.

    IN CLOSING
    When you say ‘money went away’ what you must also understand is that with money and prices will go the ability to communicate, and think. Literally.  Humans would not be able to cooperate, communicate, plan and think without money. Worse, they would have no incentive to do so, because to have an incentive one must be able to think of something to do.  And you couldn’t think of anything to do that you couldn’t do with your own two hands.

    THere is about 4 days worth of energy, and 14 days worth of food in the pipeline. If you made money vanish, you would need to make 6B people vanish along with it.

    You may find a more thorough, or a more simplistic answer elsewhere. But this is the answer, and there isnt any alternative.

    https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-there-were-no-money-on-earth

  • If An Alien Race Launches A Nuclear Missile Towards Earth, Could Nasa Defend Our Planet?

    The mass necessary to fuel the transport a nuclear weapon across light years of space is so large that there would have to be some reason to do such a thing in the first place.  I mean, if you can move something that far, you don’t need to use a nuclear weapon, just move a rock a little bit so that it hits us. That’s much more logical.

    And these things tactics don’t make sense either. THere isn’t any reason to use nuclear weapons. Planets like ours appear to be pretty scarce, so they’re valuable. You wouldn’t want to damage it.

    I can’t imagine wanting to trade with aliens.  I think it’s more likely that we would be pets. You don’t nuke pets. You catch and breed them.

    https://www.quora.com/If-an-alien-race-launches-a-nuclear-missile-towards-Earth-could-NASA-defend-our-planet