It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Arrowmancer
You, sir,s12345, are an Alien, bent on infiltrating and subverting our world so that you can ENSLAVE US!
You have started FIVE threads since hitting your post mark.
1. Spies and Immorality - In which you question the morality of intelligence-gathering. Tehcnically speaking, a National Geographic reporter/photographer team are spies, using their (and please note, I know the difference between 'there' and THEIR... re-read your post and please correct this.) skills to bring us intelligence on the wilder aspects of Earth. SO yes, there are good spies.
2. Knowledge and Power - In which you question the power of agencies utilizing spy networks. Technically, if you pick up a book on England and read it, you are gathering intelligence on that country. That, by some definition, would make you a spy. All knowledge can give you power, but the wisdom with which you WIELD that knowledge will yield you more or less power, depending. Spy networks are a way of concentrating specific intelligence.
3. The Intelligence Threat - In which you question the power and potential of intelligence gathering... again. Three posts all centered on the same thing. Intelligence gathering has no use unless a person or group utilizes it for a specific reason. The simple accumulation of data means nothing. Also, it is sometimes in the benefit of the people, the public, and the governments to install spies in certain places, such as work sites, to ensure that safety regulations are being followed. Spy networks are a tool. How a body of people USES that tool makes it good or bad.
4. Planet Ownership - In this post, you question whether a person will be able to own a planet in the future and, if so, how it would affect the population of that planet. The simple answer is: If multiple worlds were populated, those populations would be governed. Either by a village leader or a planet leader, possibly even a planetary alliance leader or government representing those people. The simple fact is, ALL authority is a manifestation of those governed. The people will always have the right and ability to cast off an unwanted body of government. Second, slavery isn't such a bad idea. It should never have been outlawed, but redefined. For a person to indenture themselves to another for a fee is reasonable. Let's say I wanted to move from one planet to the next. You can safely assume that the trip cost would be phenomenal. I should be allowed to indenture myself to the planet owner to get there. Be creative with that one. Slavery is involuntary servitude. Even if you are pressed into slavery, you can still volunteer not to be a slave.
5. Space Ethics - Asking if we, as humans, have the moral obligation to populate the heavens or the moral obligation not to. If we saw a reason for populating uninhabited worlds to be immoral, then we'd have the moral obligation not to populate that planet. If nothing were standing in our way, no ethical code violated, then we'd be able to choose without the burden of morality weighing in.
So, please kill three of your five threads as they can be summed up into two distinct threads. Then realize that you joined August 27'th, hit your minimum posts in a few short days, then created these five threads. An overview of the five questions together pose a bigger question than each of the five individually. Are you an alien researching Intelligence Gathering so that you can infiltrate us, become the proprietor of our planet and enslave us?
Originally posted by s12345
I have already covered your lack of understanding of the english language so I will proceed.
Does spying and it's completely immorality create more immorality back at those they are working for?
'There...' That's was just a momentary look at your posts. Again, it wasn't meant to be unfriendly, but I, and others like me, take our language seriously enough that we will attempt to help people express their ideas more clearly through the use of proper grammar.
If they work for another power there job is to do you harm.
The numbering is simply a way of simplifying my response so that it can be understood with greater clarity. Separating my ideas with numbers or bullets is an effective way of showing the gap between thoughts. And a spy doesn't hide the intelligence he or she gathers. The spy is paid to gather information and to reveal it to someone. What good is a spy that keeps the information they acquire and does not use it?
1.( Don't you just hate when people number things to give a sense that they know what they're talking about. As however this is a reply I will follow the convention of the post to which I am replying .) If however there is a big difference between a reporter gathering information for public disclosure and a spy gathering it and hiding it.
Of course not. That would be far too idealistic for this site. I'm saying that intelligence gathering can be used for the common good. If the end result is to help, then the spying might be a good thing. Let's say the FBI. installs a spy in a crime syndicate to investigate murder or other illegal activities. The intelligence gathered then leads to conviction and arrest of a mobster through proof of wrongdoing, information acquired by that spy. I would argue that the wisdom in which the FBI wielded their information garnered them more power in the legal system as opposed to an idiot who didn't know how to use it.
2.Are you really saying that any intelligence network will automatically on gaining enough intelligence again enlightenment and wisdom and only have wishes to help humanity? I think this is a poor argument.
3Are you really saying intelligence agencies have no way to use their data: no statistician or analysts to make sense of it.
And are still being persecuted today. Keep in mind that persecution is not slavery. The key phrase from your first sentence in this point is 'how long it took'. It could have taken a month or several hundred years. The point is, that the shackles of slavery can be thrown off, without exception. Sometimes the price for that is death, but there is freedom in that, too. A person cannot be given freedom, or it would have no value. A person must earn it and maintain it.
4.Your point of view that anyone can overthrow slavery, is perhaps forgetting how long it took the Jews to overthrow their status as slaves: they were the Ancient Egyptians slaves. Perhaps the fact that they were still being persecuted as late as world war 2.
My answer to your question, here, would be 'no'. There is no obligation in the general sense. Our obligation is to the race of man. If the continued survival of our race depended on populating an uninhabited planet (which it will at some point), then we are obligated to do so. If populating another planet requires the annihilation of an indigenous life form, then we are morally obligated to withhold.
5.My point is, is a planet with intelligent life more valuable than one without. If so are we obliged to spread it through out the galaxy?
Also your point that these threads should be shut down: should all threads on grey aliens be shut down, or all threads on new world order. Also as these threads all have posts from other people it would be arrogant and impolite to do so.
Originally posted by s12345
Do humans have a moral duty to populate the universe? Or do we have a moral duty not to?