Disclosure is Bad.

We always look and examine the issue from the technological side. But what about from the spiritual side. There are many researchers that are claiming there is more to this phenomenon than purely the physical. What if disclosure resulted in advanced spiritual techniques, or advanced thought, truth about God. I believe there are two sides to this and one of the sides is always left out of the talk, though many of the UFO/alien/ET manifestations point to something much more than just technology.

As far as the OPs view, it might be bad for a generation or two, but imagine the advancement after that initial instability. There would probably have to be a mass restructuring of the psyche, monetary systems, religious dogmas (if not a collapse), but the majority of the world population is ready for this and is passive in nature.

you bring up a good point.

the majority of the intellectual nations of the world believe in religion, believe in God. the existence of aliens, although to me doesn't go against religion, could and surely would bring religion into free fall. everything that we are today morally depends on religion. if you cut that out, what do you have?

chaos. i vote for closure, at least until the human race is ready.

I don't see how disclosure would destroy religion. People will just adapt their religious beliefs. Sure, some bad things would happen, committed by people who would probably do bad things anyway, but it's not nearly as bad as it's sometimes made out to be. The world will not end if we learn about the existence of aliens. Religions will not crumble to nothing. They want you to think the world would end. They want people to fear the unknown. Fear causes an easy method of control. If they can control people with that fear, then no one asks questions. It makes cover ups easy.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by GrayFox]

If people really wanted that then NASA (or any other space agency) would be like Shell. Instead the people really want security and there's people on both sides who would raise an army to deliver that sense of security. Which means mankind don't want to resolve differences, work together as a whole and start making some serious effort of space exploration and creating a chance to actually encounter ET life but instead do what everyone does each lifetime over and over again.

I think we are talking about the same thing, but are getting some confusion on the words. Religion as an organization might crumble. Spirituality would still exist, but depending on the nature of spirituality the ETs have (and if they, somehow, could experientially prove that the spiritual nature of the universe undeniably exists), then religions could very well be obsolete. Researching ancient texts (like Zecharia Sitchen's work for example) may actually be truth. If ETs had a hand in what the religions claim was God's work, then religions would be shattered. That doesn't mean that spirituality would crumble, but the organized institutions could.

reply to post by Karras

---

You are right. I think "Disclosure" is a myth and a red herring. Even if the government identified, declassified and released everything it has on UFOs, I doubt there would be a scrap of new technology in any of it. There is certainly no persuasive evidence of any such technology in the hands of the U.S. government or any other.

Free Energy is a fantasy, and contradicts everything we know about the physical universe. If energy were not conserved, the universe would be horribly unstable, and we would not exist.

Besides, all we need is a really cheap, 25% efficient solar cell (the best cells now are about 29% efficient, but they cost about 500$/Watt) and cheap, efficient energy storage technology. The rest is wiring, and you could run our entire civilization (about 15 TeraWatts) on Solar power by covering < 0.2% of the Earth's land surface with solar collectors. No alien technology required.

Here's my basic hypothesis: if they are here, then they are not here to save us from ourselves.


[edit on 8-5-2008 by disownedsky]

[edit on 8-5-2008 by disownedsky]

reply to post by disownedsky

---

I forgot the 1/pi loss. It's more like 0.6%. And this doesn't count all the water surface that could be covered with solar barges.

I agree, it has to be handled carefully. I disagree with sudden full disclosure. Full disclosure should be handled gradually, very slowly.

How would I like disclosure to be handled



Although full disclosure will be generational, partial disclosure can be done right now, but only to selected individuals.

I just received a thought about a term called ‘spoon-feeding’, whereby the minions are slowly introduced to the truth about not being alone in this universe – one at a time. If disclosure were to be done en masse, (like that radio broadcast by H. G. Wells), hysteria and chaos would ensue, I imagine.

Unless the ones disclosing that data have the means to control the minions from retaliating, I’m afraid technological advancements would be shared at a snail pace. However, I read how those people who wanted to share their visions of a better world (i.e. free energy), well, either met their end to some unfortunate circumstances, if not due to ‘natural’ causes.

So I’m opting for that ‘shock and awe’ this time around to observe how people would react. I think humanity is past baby food and is ready for some harder material to chew on.

i didn't mean the OP's thread post was a crappy post.. I meant the one that I had written lol.. that's why I just refreshed the page.. er.. pressed the back button to go to the thread.

no I think he poses I strong argument.. one that I've contemplated very often.

though it does lead one to have to discern as to "who" is actually doing the "warring" that we see all the time.
and for what means?

the basic reasons anyone "skirmishes" over "things.

I think you'd have to get to the root of why people fight.. and who wants that fighting to happen.




if EVERYTHING was given to us to live.. happily.. then there would really be nothing to fight over except domestic relationship issues, religious ideals, and land.

if land was the object being warred over, then it would be land that had specific intrinsic value... ie: fertile soil... beauty.. religious value ...

if all was supplied to us through this technology, then everyone would have what they needed.. and any unfertile soil could be made fertile.. or food could be grown in a manner that wouldn't need fertile soil.

this technology could allow us to beautify any barren land as well.. so beauty is off the table.

that leaves religious value.. "motherland" .. think.. israel.. etc..

if an this technology was used to create an artificial catasrophic event which caused major continental shifting.. and EVERY "holy" land went submerged.. then there'd be nothing left (as far as land is concerned) .. to fight over from a religious standpoint.


hell .. through this ultra-technology you could nip that religious-land fight issue AND the religious ideal fighting issue through an overwhelming artificial "second coming" that brought all religions into one.
wham-bam .. done.
no more endless squabbling over mythological records and imaginary boogymen.



so... the LAST remaining thing to fight over...
for someone to use the ultra-technology... would be to completely vaporise the entire planet using this tech... because of...

personal relationship issues.

jealousy of love of another person, by someone you love, for someone other than yourself.

is someone going to destroy the entire world because of that?

can't rule it out i guess.. but that's where the argument the OP presents... can finally deduct to.

that is ...
IF you first wipe out all the other reasons we fight through this technology..
FIRST.




oh yeah.. i forgot... there's the sociopathic who have no idea of what's right and wrong.. and there's the sadistic, who would do something like that purely for entertainment.

but I purposely left that out because this is ULTRA tech.. and can do virtually anything.. even completely balancing the human brain and resolving these sorts of issues.

also this ulta-tech would re-organize matter on a sub-atomic-particle level as such that we could literally transmute any element into any other element.
so fighting over land for mineral resources is kaput also.

gimme some elbow room here heh.
well it was worth an attempt at delving into the whole scenario.


-



[edit on 22-5-2008 by prevenge]

[edit on 22-5-2008 by prevenge]

I think that would only happen if the aliens were starting a war. If they were peaceful, then I think things would be much smoother. There would be a few nuts, but I don't think there would be too many problems. After all, I doubt we would learn everything anyway.

reply to post by prevenge

---

I think what you're saying is very generalized, especially concerning squabbles that deal with religion.
Religious fights don't happen over land. Sure Isreal wants Jerusalem because it's an icon to the Jews, and the Muslims want it for the same reason, but submerging/destroying it would not end the crusading.
You have to ask yourself, What is Religion?
I may not be a religious guru, but all my years of studying leads me to believe that Religion, and what convicts humans to it so greatly, is the idea(s) that it portrays.
Conflicts between religions occur because of different ideas, concepts, moral situations. A common example that I have personally studied is as follows:

I studied 200 different people. Half of them were Jewish, 50 of which were not religious at all. The other Half were Muslims, from Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and a few from Afghanistan.

I presented to each persons a situation and asked them a question with two options:

There is a village with 300 residents. This village is nowhere near any other villages and it's self sufficient, not requiring trade with any of the other villages. It has come to your attention that all 300 residents of this village have caught an extremely deadly and contagious disease. What would you do? A) Kill everybody in the village by way of bombing so the disease is neutralized. Or B) Leave the residents alone to live the rest of their sickly lives.

One or the other options can be chosen, please do not improvise.

The results of the study were rather startling. 94% of the Jewish volunteers went with option B without a moments thought. 82% of the Muslim volunteers chose option A without a moments thought. After a week before getting back to them the 82% grew to 91% for option A.

With these results I pondered to myself the cause of such a difference of opinion between Jews and Muslims. Going back to the people who volunteered for the questionnaire, I asked them why they choose the option they choose.
Many of the volunteers were unsure why they had picked what they choose, but a few key individuals from both sides said something rather interesting.

They projected that they choose their options because they believed it's the right thing to do, and then told me a story from their religious artifacts ( Torah for the Jewish individuals, the Koran from the Muslim). The stories both sides shared had a common message derived from both religious texts.

The Koran teaches it's students that a cursed peoples should be destroyed immediately, before the curse can spread, and the Torah teaches that a cursed peoples should live out their cursed lives, that it is not the privilege of man to judge whether a human lives or dies, despite whatever dangers they can bring.

This fundamental difference in idea's is what keeps the Muslims and the Jews at constant squabbles. The Muslim religion views the Jewish Nation as a curse, a blight upon the world. They feel it is their duty to destroy them. The Jewish Religion believes the Muslims religion is a curse, but the core ideas of the Jewish Religion keep the Jews from maliciously seeking to destroy the Arab Nations.



The Crab with the Biggest Claw, Crabmeat.