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.

 

If extraterrestraials we're hostile, we'd either have never existed or been exterminated.

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
I think it's most likely that we work with ET's protecting our planet and monitoring who and what enters our Solar System.

I'm not sure how we would work with ET's.

But if ET's visited us, and we obtained their technology..

The first thing we would do, IMO, would be to see who is coming and going in our Solar System.


Edit to Add: On the topic of being hostile, there must be hostile space travelers, I think we are capable of chasing them out or defending the Solar System.

Not only hostile, but ET's could carry deadly germs and or a virus that would be extremely threatening to life on Earth.

If we have ET technology, I'm sure there is a secret space agency screening anything that enters the Solar System. This seems like the most logical first step with using the technology.
edit on 26-11-2010 by game over man because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Same line!
S&F.


There is no direct threat for human kind by Extraterrestrial Civilizations that visit our planet from hundred thousand years. No threat in all these last 60 years and never before.

The real threat comes from ourselves with approaching different species. (57 catalogued)

A change of Human Paradigm is more powerfull than other Alien threats.

This is the threat: The Change of Paradigm.

Are we ready for that?



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 


This argument does not hold up.

I think time travel is real, and it makes the argument that is suggested in this thread as not true. People always say, if aliens where evil why are we still here.

Ask yourself. Why does israel not kill everyone in gaza, and be done with it. No they do not as they like torturing people and killing them slowly, just like uk and usa govs.

There are so many argumenst against the argument people say about why aliens would not have wiped us out already? This argument does not mean they are not evil.


edit on 11/26/2010 by andy1033 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Here's some thoughts.
They don't destroy us because:
a)we are no harm to them.Our technology cannot harm them so why bother?
b)Earth is might be protected by a treaty of a universal federation.Primitive planets like ours are not to be destroyed unless they turn hostile to the other planets.They can play with us(crop circles,abduction etc) but they cannot destroy us.
c)They don't destroy us because we can do a pretty good job and destroy ourselves.
d)They are with an agreement with the world goverment not to destroy the planet in return of us being slaves to them.
e)We are in a neutral zone and noone is allowed to come to Earth heavily armed.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Are we not being incredibly naive and conceited in defining Alien's motivation as being either benign or malign? That makes about as much sense as interpreting animal's behavior and reactions in human terms.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by annella
Any of you who believe that aliens have visited Earth for millenia....and believe them to be hostile... need to re examine those beliefs IMO.
Why would they wait for 1000,s of years until there are more of us, more aware of their presence, more capable weapons wise ( well, in our own eyes at least) etc?
I am in the benevolent camp with both feet!!

Me too and l agree with all of what you're saying. l would even say it is kind of illogical to think that they are malvolent, why would they be here and observe us for such a long time and not take over the planet already, if this was the plan in the first place? l think they are just curious about us, some kind of 'scientific explorers'.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANGELFALLEN
Are we not being incredibly naive and conceited in defining Alien's motivation as being either benign or malign? That makes about as much sense as interpreting animal's behavior and reactions in human terms.


Of course we're not being naive or conceited! If they're here, on our planet, it's our duty to assess any threat potential. Even if our assessment does not good in the long run. And we do interpret animal's behavior and reactions in human terms because we, on a baser level, require everything an animal does. Food, shelter, procreation? If a wolf goes off into the forest to die, alone, how is that not interpretable in human terms?

As far as conceited goes, I'd think it's the exact opposite. If we were conceited, we'd just let them hang around, do whatever they want, confident in our own superiority. Which is kind of the opposite of what we DO do. If they're floating about in the heavens, we can be reasonably sure that we aren't superior.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Arrowmancer
 

You have completely missed my point, in that I am suggesting that maybe humans have not sufficiently evolved to be able to comprehend first and foremost what an Alien is let alone it's possible motivations. By your owns comment 'it's our duty to assess any threat potential' you to have evidently succumbed to the popular perception inspired by your standard Sc-fi Hollywood dross.

With regard to your comment about the analogies between us and animals, yes I have to concede there are fundamental commonalities re: the need for food, shelter and procreation but for us to interpret an animal's behavior/reactions in human terms as evidence of the existance of an emotional hinterland is preposterous.

Finally, human conceit is perfectly illustrated by Mead's advisor Franz Boas refering to the Samoans infamous commentry on the Samoans (just supplant Samoans with Aliens and you get the flavour):-

"Courtesy, modesty, good manners, conformity to definite ethical standards are universal, but what constitutes courtesy, modesty, very good manners, and definite ethical standards is not universal. It is instructive to know that standards differ in the most unexpected ways."

Take about stating the bleeding obvious. Any self-respecting Alien should bitch slap us into submission for pontificating on what we cannot know or comprehend-until disclosur lol.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Just like with humans,a aliens will come with different motives. Some good, some bad, some indifferent.
Maybe we are to be harvested one day by the aliens, just like cows or something.
Maybe these aliens are just a mirror of the universe and ourselves and as we define our reality and expand it, so it changes. I dont think we have to look further than ourselves to define your statement....

mb kx



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANGELFALLEN
reply to post by Arrowmancer
 

You have completely missed my point, in that I am suggesting that maybe humans have not sufficiently evolved to be able to comprehend first and foremost what an Alien is let alone it's possible motivations. By your owns comment 'it's our duty to assess any threat potential' you to have evidently succumbed to the popular perception inspired by your standard Sc-fi Hollywood dross.


I haven't missed your point. It hit target, completely, I just don't agree with you.

I do believe it's our duty to assess threat potential. That doesn't automatically make Aliens our enemy. This opinion (and yes, it is an opinion, nothing more) isn't based on anything from the realm of science fiction entertainment. It's simple necessity. Our sun is not our enemy, but we must consider the threat of UV rays and solar storms so that me might do what we can to counter the danger. As far as comprehending what an Alien is, I'm not sure what you mean or how we can't do that. An Alien by definition would be alien to our world, not of it.


With regard to your comment about the analogies between us and animals, yes I have to concede there are fundamental commonalities re: the need for food, shelter and procreation but for us to interpret an animal's behavior/reactions in human terms as evidence of the existance of an emotional hinterland is preposterous.


Assuming that animals don't have emotions that are equatable to humans displays is a show of conceit. Would you assume that because we are the dominant species that our emotions are unique in our world, and that animals do not display baser levels of our refined emotions? I've seen loneliness in all walks of life. I've seen selflessness. I've seen happiness, anger, depression, curiosity, and even greed. These are all human emotions that exist in the animal kingdom. The triggers might be different but the displays are similar. To NOT attempt to understand these things based on our own perception of the world (which is the only form of judgement we actually have...) is preposterous.


Finally, human conceit is perfectly illustrated by Mead's advisor Franz Boas refering to the Samoans infamous commentry on the Samoans (just supplant Samoans with Aliens and you get the flavour):-

"Courtesy, modesty, good manners, conformity to definite ethical standards are universal, but what constitutes courtesy, modesty, very good manners, and definite ethical standards is not universal. It is instructive to know that standards differ in the most unexpected ways."


A beautiful and insightful quote! I will add it to the long list of quotes I've collected from ATS that demands further contemplation. I completely agree with the above.

However, I don't think it demonstrates conceit. I, as a rational person, can understand that different circumstances will warrant different ideas of courtesy, modesty and decorum. If a race that lives for thousands of years (a possibility, nothing more) sentences one of their own to incarceration, a hundred year imprisonment for a simple crime would not seem that big a deal. From the human standpoint, the number of years is a staggering number for few of us live to see that many. But I would think the majority of the population would understand the punishment and not see it as unjust. Many of us, if shown something we don't understand, will at least give a good attempt at understanding it.


Take about stating the bleeding obvious. Any self-respecting Alien should bitch slap us into submission for pontificating on what we cannot know or comprehend-until disclosur lol.


And how does this not demonstrate conceit and arrogance on the part of Aliens? How does it not represent such things from you as the opinion itself is yours. It would seem you've passed your own form of judgement on your own race. And pontificating on what we cannot know? There isn't a single thing in the universe we cannot know. Theres a great deal that we do NOT know, but that can change. Ignorance is a curable disease. 'Pontificating' on the things we don't know, with logical analysis, rational thought, and a bit of human creativity might lead us to unknown answer when nothing else does.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
I agree wholeheartedly in your assertion that we need to assess the 'threat potential' but not from the Aliens but from the enemy within. By that, I mean our track record as a race in which we continue to fail to live peacefully and harmoniously with our fellowman does not bode well for first contact.

'Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former'. Albert Einstein.

As for your point that animals have baser levels of refined emotions, could it be that animals perceive us as being the ones with baser emotions. We cannot superimpose our limited and questionable knowledge on other species. Yes, it pays to speculate and investigate but not make spurious conclusions based on our desire to 'humanise' everything both on and not of God's (or a Supreme Being/being's) Earth.

Finally, to make the assumption that I have made my own judgement on my own race is yet another assumption on your part that is a woeful misjudgement.

Last year I was diagnosed with cancer and the kindness, compassion and consideration shown me from family, friends and health professionals at all levels has re-affirmed my belief in human kindness but that is my own fortunate experience and unfortunately not everyone's experience is the same.

I continue to hunger for something that endures, provides purpose and gives meaning and that is why I relish concrete proof that we are not alone because the fact that we are continues to distort reality.
edit on 27-11-2010 by ANGELFALLEN because: Spelling

edit on 27-11-2010 by ANGELFALLEN because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2010 by ANGELFALLEN because: Spelling

edit on 27-11-2010 by ANGELFALLEN because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2010 by ANGELFALLEN because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ANGELFALLEN
 


I'm sorry that you have cancer, but am heartened that it has been found and is being dealt with. I wish you courage, strength, and friendship.

While our opinions differ somewhat, we can agree on several things. But I'd like to point out that war with our fellow man isn't such a terrible thing. Nearly every major technological breakthrough (if not all) is a direct result of war. I will give that if we weren't constantly at war with each other, we would eventually gain the knowledge any way without the loss of life, but not nearly so quickly. We are creatures of dual nature. While it would be great to be at peace with our fellow man, leaving us the time and leisure to pursue more spiritual or cerebral endeavors, war is in our very nature. Only through conflict can there be changed. As long as there are two humans alive on this planet, there will be opposing points of view, and the desire to sway the other to it. The most aggressive form of this is combat.

Concerning the emotions of animals, humans are animals, too. And animals display the same emotions that we do. We can judge them accurately, predict their behavior based on the display of that emotion, as we would ourselves.

It was your comment about the Alien's slapping us into submission for what you appear to be a weakness within our race that made me comment on your judgement. I'm not saying you're wrong on it, simply pointing out that you, too, are judgmental.

And I wish for proof as well. To think that Humans are the lone intelligent life in our universe is saddening. I'd hate to think that a species as fundamentally basic as ours could rule the cosmos. A lack of universal biological novelties is a staggeringly depressing thought.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
So,
Two steers are in a pasture having a conversation.
One says "Humans aren't hostile. Otherwise there would be no cows left."



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Arrowmancer
 


You are a truly wise individual but your assertion that we are animals is questionable because as Humans we have in theory evolved and are above an animal's baser instincts by using our reasoning ability and propensity to exercise restraint.

Unfortunately, although the general consensus is that we are the superior race, the evidence indicates quite the contrary.

Ancient Greece, once considered the cradle of democracy, however this bastion of civilisation was flawed by failing to give the vote to women, slaves and foreigners.

That was then and this now, North Korea clearly posesses WMD's but unlike Iraq, America chooses not to invade.

Flawed logic is the connection and this is what surrounds the Alien question and will continue to do so whilst we met by silence by the powers that be.

To conclude, in life, people talk to each other because chatter fills the void. (‘What is there to keep us here?’ one of Beckett’s tramps asks and receives the answer: ‘The dialogue.’) Silence frightens us, because it brings us closer to the essential unknowability of life.


edit on 27-11-2010 by ANGELFALLEN because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2010 by ANGELFALLEN because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
What makes me propose this theory? Oh, well, let's take this in to account.

Our inferior technology has the capability of discovering possibly habitable planets, such as the one in the Gliese 581 system.

If us, with our inferior technology has this capability, then any neighboring civilizations that have the possibility of traveling to EARTH would also undoubtedly be ability to discover the habitability of Earth, and they would have done it

THOUSANDS IF NOT MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO

Alas, a paradox has been born, we either

A) would have never existed to begin with,
B) would have been systematically removed from the planet,
C) been used as slaves to do what they needed to do.

Obviously, A and B are out of the picture leaving C the only plausible theory, and no one wants to believe that there's a underground alien civilization controlling the earth, do they?

Well, given the fact that C was true, and there is evil aliens with a evil agenda, then yeah, they're evil, otherwise all of us who have seen UFOs that explicitly defy all principles of physics have to agree among ourselves, that they are not hostile OR it's our own technology we're not releasing.

Stephen Hawkings position is absolutely flawed. If aliens we're hostile, we WOULD already all be dead and it doesn't take a damn genius to figure that out.

Tell me, how does the government keep us in control? Well, I'll tell you how if you didn't already know. Fear.

Wake up people, aliens aren't hostile.




edit on 25-11-2010 by Revolution-2012 because: (no reason given)


you missed out
D) they don't care, we are just a curiosity
E) there are no aliens just time travellers
F) They were interested but moved on to bigger and better things
G) They just want to observe
H) they care but are waiting for the right moment
I) the human mind made it all up
J) ad infinitum



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Sorry, but I really have to disagree. Your argument seems just as flawed as you accuse Hawkings' of being.

Five hundred years ago we barely possessed the technology to look properly into our own Solar System and now today we can, to a certain extent, look beyond our own galaxy. Think about where we'll be 500 years from now. I think you've drastically underestimated the speed of development of an advancing civilization.

Let's say 500 hundred years ago an alien species had only just advanced to a point where they could detect the habitability of Earth, that could very well mean that they would only have the technology to reach our planet now.
Now a different scenario, an alien civilization is over 2000 years more advanced than we are. They could have easily be aware of humans for an extremely long time and could have easily destroyed us if they were hostile. Now lets pretend that their planet is facing an impending disaster which will destroy their species. So today they make the decision to head out across the galaxy to Earth, the closest habitable planet. Let's also pretend that they have discovered the ability to open up a wormhole and arrive on Earth tomorrow.

There are many more ways that an alien race could be hostile and have not destroyed humanity already. You have assumed that a civilization must be millions of years more advanced than our own, when a civilization of that age may not even exist. It's entirely possible that life originated in the universe at around the same time and evolved at a relatively similar speed. You've over simplified things, I'm afraid.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by BDIII
There are many more ways that an alien race could be hostile and have not destroyed humanity already. You have assumed that a civilization must be millions of years more advanced than our own, when a civilization of that age may not even exist. It's entirely possible that life originated in the universe at around the same time and evolved at a relatively similar speed. You've over simplified things, I'm afraid.

Well, obviously they have overcome gravity, dont know if this means that they are millons of years ahead of us. But they are observing us for a very very long time, and this raises the question, why are they not just taking over the planet, if this was the plan in the first place? They just seem to observe us, nothing else.

In dubio pro reo: lnnocent until proven guilty, lol.
edit on 28-11-2010 by gnostician because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 03:27 AM
link   
I totally agree.... This "let's keep low" strategy serves only the purpose to make us all afraid, as usual...

In my view if evil aliens might not have found us yet because the universe is a big **** place, then it must mean that it's a matter of the speed at which you can explore it, so at the end it's a matter of how technologically evolved the various aliens out there are; Maybe ther are evil aliens that havent found us yet, but there ARE others that have, and these fully fit into the logic that if they were evil, then probably we wouldnt have this conversation...

Of course we could hypothesize that something is already going on behind our backs that will create damage to our precious Earth, but i doubt it...

I am more on a Star Trek line of thought.... They are studying us, interacting only very specifically, maybe they could be more careful, maybe we are just more and more careful at spotting them, maybe there actually is an agenda towards discosure, soon or maybe in decades; on that we can only theorize.... But i belive that if a race is evolved, then it will know about nature, biospheres, how civilizations evolve etc etc, therefore the Non Interference "Star Trek" rule is probably right in other civilizations as well, and i agree with this post


cheers



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANGELFALLEN
reply to post by Arrowmancer
 


You are a truly wise individual but your assertion that we are animals is questionable because as Humans we have in theory evolved and are above an animal's baser instincts by using our reasoning ability and propensity to exercise restraint.

I'm not too good at accepting compliments. Normally, a pat on the back has just been a method to distract me before sinking in the knife
As far as calling humans 'animals' that was probably the wrong way to state it. If there are superior beings zipping through our atmo, that's probably how they would see us. From their point-of-view, they might not be able to differentiate us as a species from the other species that walk the planet. And reasoning and restraint are also visible in the animal kingdom. It's what stops a lioness from executing a downed lion, even if the act would better her position in the pride. It's what stops a dolphin from outright murdering a shark even though the school would benefit from it. I would think it a show of compassion or possibly mercy, but to use only logical analysis in considering these displays of restraint would only cause madness.



That was then and this now, North Korea clearly posesses WMD's but unlike Iraq, America chooses not to invade.

Twenty men who want to fight for no particular reason going against one Samurai warrior who believes to the very core that he can not only enter combat, but WIN, and is prepared to shed every last drop of blood to that end... is a frightening scenario. Conviction, discipline, and willingness define that Samurai warrior. North Korea has some of the best, brightest and hardest soldiers on the planet, and they are fueled by dead hatred and an absolute conviction to end us. Or so our media tells us. IF that were true, they will be a formidable foe. The US will not attack them. Well, the Marines might jump on the opportunity to cross blades for the Warrior's Test, but the rest of the military wouldn't follow suit.

Still, I stand behind my original argument on the Original question. We have to assess the threat and respond accordingly. There's nothing wrong with fearing the things we don't know or understand. That's the reason we're still on this planet. Our fear is our salvation from the unexpected things that .. .literally... blow up in our faces. Our fear keeps us from taking things one-step-too-far. And if those Aliens are up there, we can assume, based on what we know, that they aren't friendly. At best, they're nuetral observers waiting for us to eventually annihilate ourselves. At worst, they are our enemies, directing us to that end, or our Masters, allowing us to carry on our lives, unknowingly fulfilling their agenda.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Arrowmancer
 


Again, the definition of what constitues a sentient being depends on your belief sustems eg: Early scriptures in the Pali Canon and the conventions of the Tibetan Bhavachakra classify sentient beings into five categories—divinities, humans, animals, tormented spirits, and denizens of hell—although sometimes the classification adds another category of demonic beings between divinities and humans.As you mentioned by applying logic there lies madness when 3 of 5 of the categories are purely mythological.

With regard to the Samurai, Iraq was invaded on the pretext of WMD but the hidden agenda being oil, the same scenario applies to Iran who despite the perceived threat does not have WMD's and does not advocate using them. Whilst North Korea, despite the hyperbole surrounding their mythical fighting force (which would be annihilated at the push of a button regardless of their prowess) does posess WMD's.

The deterent for America regarding NK is the fact that they do possess WMD's and there is no guarantee that they would not hesitate to use them at the slightest provocation.
edit on 29-11-2010 by ANGELFALLEN because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join