It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ETs here for peace or war.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueEyes
One could also say that the "less positive" view is somewhat more realistic.

Someone working in a sweat shop in Asia, or someone living in Africa, trying to explain to their children why their local water has to be polluted because men from other continents want their local gold, would probably argue that things haven´t changed at all.

But yes, todays human is somewhat more "humane" than his ancestors. This, mostly, due to the fact that he can afford to be so.

Humanity has changed, yes, but humans remain the same.



[edit on 7-7-2005 by BlueEyes]


Man haha...such a grudge you seem to hold haha




posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 03:39 AM
link   


One could also say that the "less positive" view is somewhat more realistic.


And many people do, but that is a highly subjective judgement. I think humans see the evil in humanity as larger than it really is as a survival trait. The newspaper says a man was murdered in your city. It does not say 1 million people were not, it does not say half a million people had a pretty good day. The one man is important, he is news. You read, perhaps you learn you wish to avoid a particular area, or not to do some particular thing to protect yourself from what happened to him.

You do not seek out information on the 500,000 people who had a good day, you do not need to know where they were, or what they were doing. You certainly are aware those people are out there, but you have a valid reason to focus on the 1 man.

Survival. So when we look at humanity, how many '1 man' are out there?

People lie, they do we all know that, big and small they tell them all. But on every day millions of people do not lie. Each second that ticks by the balance remains on the side of people who are as honest as they can be. Truth is in the eye of the beholder as are many things after all.

So I think when we look at humanity we do not see it clearly.




Humanity has changed, yes, but humans remain the same.


Humanity is made up of humans, you must believe that humans do change somewhat otherwise Humanity would remain the same. I am not trying to play word games here but I do not see how you mean this.

Does the idea that we never really lose anything we just add new parts to ourselves perhaps tie in? It is not that we no longer have the killer instinct but rather that we have added the ability to control it. I have found this on a personal level, when very young I was intensely jealous in matters of romance. I acted on these feelings more than once.

But since then I have lived a life that is as free of jealousy as it can be. I still feel it sometimes but it has no effect on what I do or how I react. I could illustrate that quite, quite clearly but that would be a little personal for a public forum. Whatever it is that is in me that produces feelings of jealousy still exists, but it gets no more than a passing thought now.


A.T
(-)


[edit on 7/7/05 by Alexander Tau]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alexander Tau


And many people do, but that is a highly subjective judgement. I think humans see the evil in humanity as larger than it really is as a survival trait. .......



Never did I claim that humans are to be considered as "evil". Humans are still, however, animals.



Humanity is made up of humans, you must believe that humans do change somewhat otherwise Humanity would remain the same. I am not trying to play word games here but I do not see how you mean this.
.......


Humanity, as of a whole, consists of the individuals in an environment in which their behaviour is strictly controlled/regulated by a set of rules, namely those consisting of "morale" and/or "laws". This is humanity, as I see it, the individuals as a group, and the environment in which it exists.

Remove the morale and/or laws, however, and the individuals start behaving as they wish. For many, this is no problem, since they instantly apply rules according to what they have learned previously. For example, if you take a group of ten individuals from their current environment and drop them together in an unknown environment they will try to found some form of hierarchy under which they will try to cooperate. Of course there is a chance that one or more will not abide to the laws set, and there will be conflict. Once resolved, however, there will be some form of leadership in one or more groups, according to which the individuals will try to abide. this is humanity, acting as a group.


However, if you were to breed individuals separately, and let them grow up in their own environment, the predator trait would, in most cases, be more developed. Conctacts between the single humans would, in many cases, be followed by violence. These are humans, as individuals.



[edit on 7-7-2005 by BlueEyes]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   


Never did I claim that humans are to be considered as "evil"


I did not mean to imply that you did. My point was that if your overall judgement of humans leans towards the negative then you are putting more weight on the negative evidence than I think is correct. I used the word evil in the sense of wrong, bad, harmful.

To make such a comprehensive judgement we add in evidence of both the good and the bad to see what we have in total.




Humanity, as of a whole, consists of the individuals in an environment in which their behaviour is strictly controlled/regulated by a set of rules, namely those consisting of "morale" and/or "laws". This is humanity, as I see it, the individuals as a group, and the environment in which it exists.


Ok I am with you now on the terms, you use Humanity in the way I use Society. I pretty much agree with the above statement except I would substitute the word 'loosely' for 'strictly'.




Remove the morale and/or laws, however, and the individuals start behaving as they wish.


Sure, but that is a lab experiement sort of thing, in reality that cannot happen. But I am willing to go with you on the idea that a significant part of humans is animal. We have never lost those traits but we have added so much more to them.

We can choose to do wrong, we can choose to ignore that which we hold as morals. But is not even this a sign of how much more than animals we are, they do not choose, they react.

I have an animal looking at me right now, a great dog. Loyal, friendly, if he did not bark so much he would be damn near perfect. But if I attack him, he will do his best to bring me down. In an instant all the years of friendship will vanish and we will be down to kill or be killed.

On the other hand, if he attacks me I will not respond in kind. I will know he is sick, hurt, or in some fashion not himself. If there is any way to do so I will restrain him, and since he is only a shelty I have a pretty good size advantage.




However, if you were to breed individuals separately, and let them grow up in their own environment, the predator trait would, in most cases, be more developed. Conctacts between the single humans would, in many cases, be followed by violence.


Again, sure I agree with that. Take a human out of a human environment and what you have left is animal. But put that same human in an environment where they are not threatened, where they do not have to fight for food, and perhaps where they have a book or two and might you not get something completely different?

Other humans make us human. We are a social creature and one that has ties to other's of our kind that transend any in the animal kingdom.

I think we are in complete agreement on the animal side of human nature. I find that most people rationalize animal instincts and survival traits into their rational processes quite often. We say to ourselves that we are doing something for one reason but in truth we are doing it for a very basis one.

But we have also been learning to be more than that for a long time. This is not a linear process, we do not add one new thing at a time. Human learning is geometric, each new fact leads to a new range of ideas. I am sure you have heard the old bar question 'Would you rather have this $1,000 right now, or this penny which I will double every day for a month'.
Smart money is on the penny.

To say we are just above the state of animals seems to me to be dismissing a whole lot of accumulated interest.


A.T
(-)



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Very well spoken and i agree completely with you Alexander.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
mbkennel is right on the money in my humble opinion. These UFO's are task oriented and don't want to be impeded. They obviously prefer as little interaction and communication as is necessary to complete their task.

What is their task? I suspect it's merely scientific study to them. Their level of advancement is staggering.

What is truely interesting is our reaction to them and what we conjour up trying to make sense of this phenomenon. Maybe UFO's are your Grandmother looking in on you from time to time. Just because they are fantastic doesn't mean we have to attribute fantastic motivations to them, do we?



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Well, I don't think we can interpret ET motivations in human terms or timescales.

For example, the ETs might have technology literally *millions* of years more advanced than ours. They may be effectively immortal, having long since conquered aging and most or all forms of disease they are susceptible to.

Such a race might not be in any hurry to do anything, and might think in timescales that seem very long to us short-lived monkeys. If you live 10,000 years, waiting a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand years to make contact with a new species may not seem so long really.

They also may not see a point, any more than we see a big point in opening diplomatic relations with chimpanzees and gorillas. At some point of technological disparity, the risk of making contact might far outweigh any benefit you could derive from it.

I personally don't think of any ETs that might be visiting as hostile. If they were, they could have done literally ANYTHING they wanted to to us by now. They can move through our airspace at will, and we could not effectively engage them. Any goal they might have, from enslavement to extermination, is easily within their grasp.

Therefore, I tend to think their attitude is either mildly disinterested curiosity, or outright friendly interest. The former seems more likely, given their lack of interaction with us, though that might be for reasons of protecting either our or their society from the ramifications of premature contact. After all, they probably have thousands of years' experience at contacting other races, and know how to do it to maximum benefit for both parties.

IF the ETs exist, of course.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I doubt they are here for war, think about it, if they were here for war they would of already made a move.


I believe they are here for the same reason why we are exploring space and playing with comets 83 million miles away, and driving vehicles on mars, etc. And that is exploration.


And dear god if they do decide to make contact I hope our governments would f$%# off. Hopefully if they do they will use their technology to disable all military vehicles and weapons so there can be no attacking.



Just my thoughts



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Hmm.. there are many E.T races outside and u can't say whether E.Ts are coming for war or peace. There maybe E.T come here to just study us and bye bye or perhaps come here to do businesses like trading human for advance technology. But I believe certain E.T races will come and kick us off the planets. So.. can't have a conclusion for your question.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join