The more advanced aliens are, the more we can make reliable predictions about them. For example, they will have values and ways of thinking closer to what we call "scientific" than "religious/mystical/superstitious/etc." If they did not, they would not become advanced.
Wars are very expensive and destructive. It's hard to become advanced when you keep destroying wealth. On Earth, as we've become more peaceful, we've also become more wealthy, and more able to travel space. The same logic for why this would be so on Earth, applies elsewhere.
I don't know. You can't say that "They would not become advanced" just because they had a religious or superstitious outlook. What is to prevent an alien race that attributes their existence to a higher power from achieving technological progress? Would you also say then that our scientists of today who are advancing our level of technology are by definition irreligious?
Likewise, a warlike race of aliens is not hard to imagine. Wars are "expensive" in that they cost lots of money, but when america wages war the money that is spent in such great amounts is spent on American troops and government contractors, who in turn take the money they earned and spend it on other goods, so it does not "destroy" the money. In fact, war is generally an economy booster. As far as the destruction of resources, assume this hypothetical alien race is warlike toward OTHER species, not internally. The things they are destroying, then, are not on their homeworld, but on the worlds of those they conquer, and every world they conquer is another batch of resources for them to sap before moving on.
I just think you can't really predict the way another race would develop based on a random sample of 1 (humans).
Wars are "expensive" in that they cost lots of money, but when america wages war the money that is spent in such great amounts is spent on American troops and government contractors, who in turn take the money they earned and spend it on other goods, so it does not "destroy" the money. In fact, war is generally an economy booster.
There are laws of physics, which govern how knowledge is created, and how it is not. Superstitious methods of thinking cannot create a higly advanced civilization.
Knowledge is created by a process of replication (with errors), and selection. In human-level terms, truth seeking requires being open to new ideas, including criticism, and replacing faulty ideas. Attitudes like, "some things should remain mysteries and aren't for us to know," "I can believe whatever I want as long as it makes me happy," or whatever it is behind superstitions, prevent knowledge creation. If those attitudes are too prevalent, and applied to too many subjects, you can't develop space flight, and other advanced knowledge.
wars create additional financial wealth, but they don't create material wealth. Wars are inflationary. The best definition of wealth has nothing to do with money, but instead asks what the productive potential is. Wars decrease productive potential. They may increase it for one society and decrease it for another, but the sum total is reduced. There are interesting questions here about the destruction of low productivity facilities, say a factory of weavers, versus destruction of high productivity facilities such as a factory of weaving machines.
Also, some wealth is lost in the form of bullets, bombs, and other weapons that are used in the process. It's not the total cost of the bomb, but it is the cost of the physical material that makes the bomb.
I think he means that the need for technological superiority in order to win wars paves the way for future wealth creation. Just look at how many wonderful new technologies started as DARPA projects.
More controversially, war deaths reduce the supply of labor, making it more valuable for those who survive. The Black Plague had a similar effect.
Breaking windows increases the need for new windows, thus paving the wave for new window technology.
But you could have researched that anyway, without breaking the window first. When you are forced to research something b/c of a broken window, or war, you set aside what would have otherwise been a higher priority.
Being forced to do something is not a good way to discover the best priority. Free choice, while imperfect, works better.
Wars are very expensive and destructive. It's hard to become advanced when you keep destroying wealth. On Earth, as we've become more peaceful, we've also become more wealthy, and more able to travel space. The same logic for why this would be so on Earth, applies elsewhere.