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.

 

Aliens Myths: 5 Big Misconceptions About Extraterrestrial Life

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by nightbringr
 


Ok, I will have to concede and admit you are correct about one thing: there's no reason they should have the same morality and ethics as us. The reason I was arguing the point I was arguing is because if we reached a state where we were forced to exterminate another species for their resources that would indicate we didn't use the resources on our own planet in a sustainable way... it would indicate we ravaged the Earth and used all the resources with little regard for the environment of our own planet. And then if we were to continue that unsustainable ravaging by forcefully stealing the resources from another sentient species that would be the final proof to say the Human species was nothing but a careless viral species leaving a trail of destruction and death behind us where ever we go... that is not how I want to think of the Human species, I would like to believe we a better than that... after all, we are here discussing how terrifying that would be if a species like that invaded Earth... I don't want to believe that we are capable of being our own worste nightmare, and I would like to think other self-aware species (especially ones capable of interstellar travel) are humble enough to make this same realization.


If we were capable of travelling to other star system we would be able to mine the resources required from a vast array of planets not inhabited by life.

Thats an assumption. No reason to believe thats true. Life forms on planets WITH the necissary resources, not the opposite.
No... life forms on planets with ALL the necessary resources. There are countless planets which contain multiple of the resources required, in fact even the rarest resources on Earth can be found in abundance else where... for example there are entire planets made of diamond. And we've even found multiple planets like Earth which contain virtually all the resources we think life needs. There is absolutely no reason to target a planet which already has life when it would be simple to find the necessary resources on other uninhabited planets.


He is able to think logically and at a level ten times what you and i can.

Yes he can think logically with exceptional accuracy, but he often fails to think in practical terms with exceptional accuracy. Furthermore, he is not a psychologist or a sociologist, and he doesn't understand consciousness anywhere as well as he thinks he does. He has limited ability to interact with other people and is often in his own fantasy land of imagination. Hawking basically said any alien species we come across will likely be aggressive and dominant... I am not saying it's impossible for an alien species to be malevolent, I'm saying the probability of us having to face such a species is dramatically lower than the probability of us having to face a benevolent species.
edit on 19/6/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   


These are her opinions....I don't believe in the peaceful alien theory. If they cared they wouldn't watch us destroy ourselves and if they created us we're nothing but an experiment and they won't intervene.
reply to post by DeadSnow
 


Firstly why should they try and solve humanity's discipline problems? Secondly, well, that's out of the question.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 

A star for you, just for this:


I will have to concede and admit you are correct.

That is a rare and beautiful sight to see on Above Top Secret.

The following though, is not at all star-worthy:


Stephen Hawking... often fails to think in practical terms with exceptional accuracy. Furthermore... he doesn't understand consciousness anywhere as well as he thinks he does. He has limited ability to interact with other people and is often in his own fantasy land of imagination.

Have you any examples to share with us of
  1. Prof. Hawking's inability to think accurately as well as practically?

  2. His faulty understanding of consciousness?

  3. His tendency to live in the 'fantasy land of imagination'?

You may, for all I know, be right; but everything I know about the man from his writings and the details of his biography says you are simply making up a fictitious personality and projecting it onto Prof. Hawking.

In my view, anyone who has lived for four decades with a disease that makes the simplest human actions well-nigh impossible must have an impressive grasp of practicalities; his life, every second of the day, depends upon it. Regarding his understanding of consciousness, I honestly cannot recall ever hearing or reading anything by him on the subject, so unless you can quote specific references I must regretfully conclude you are making this up. And as for his tendency to live in a 'fantasy land of the imagination', well, he's a theoretical physicist, so that is what he gets paid for – but again, I have never read or heard anything by him that suggests an infirm grasp of reality. Really, this is all just slander, isn't it?

But to address the matter of this thread:


Hawking basically said any alien species we come across will likely be aggressive and dominant. I am not saying it's impossible for an alien species to be malevolent, I'm saying the probability of us having to face such a species is dramatically lower than the probability of us having to face a benevolent species.

First, are you sure that's what Hawking said? I think you're paraphrasing, and inaccurately at that. I believe his point was that they are likely to have interests that conflict with ours and purposes that threaten us. Or even that, in the pursuit of their interests, they may do us harm without intending to or even really noticing us.

There is one thing we can say for sure about intelligent aliens in the Galaxy: we don't know anything about them. We can't tell what shape they take, how they behave or what motivates them. Given this comprehensive ignorance, we would be very ill advised to make any assumptions about them whatsoever. Our wisest course – the one Prof. Hawking recommends – is to prepare ourselves for the worst.

Your arguments against his advice are essentially Utopian ones. You believe that if a species can achieve interstellar travel it must necessarily be advanced in ethics as well as technology. Yet nothing from our own experience supports this. For all its cultural and scientific progress, humankind has not changed its moral character one jot from the Paleolithic to the present day. The world is as full of evil deeds – and good ones – as it ever was. You cannot justify your arguments from history; their only justification is your hope that humanity is improvable, from which you deduce that aliens must be also. Sounds a little bit like 'the fantasy land of the imagination' to me.

Aliens may turn out to be angels, but what we have learned from observing and participating in the struggle for existence on Earth warns us that, if they began their evolution as biological entities of any kind, they almost certainly will not be. Angels only exist in the human imagination.

Dealings between humans and aliens must surely be political or commercial (in the broadest sense). Look at this from the human point of view: should we not protect our own interests? Of course we should, and surely we will do our best to. In doing so, should we always be mindful of the best interests of our alien counterparts? What if their interests conflict with ours? Do you honestly believe such a situation could never arise?

No-one can predict what the terms of interaction between humans and aliens will be. They may destroy us without intending to – see if you can find an old short story by, I think, Samuel R. Delaney called 'Your Haploid Heart', in which a friendly alien species destroys humanity by being so desirable we all fall in love with them instead of each other and stop having babies. Yes, of course it's far-fetched – but that's just the point. Until we meet these aliens we can't know anything about them. And until we do know, it is safest to assume they'll be just like us – selfish, smart and armed to the teeth.


edit on 19/6/12 by Astyanax because: of bits and bobs.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by putnamcrab
Looky here Dinky Do! Count yourself lucky that your on the side of the debunkers "looking" for hardcore evidence you'll never find, and not on the side of the poor victim who gets assaulted sometimes 10 times aday everyday.

But if you still need proof? Spend sometime with an experiencer, all you need is to give up 30 days of your time!
You will walk away a changed man! So there's your chance for proof!!!

Yah Brah PROOF!

If you are sometimes assaulted up to ten times a day, providing video evidence will be easy, and you will be the one to break this astounding discovery upon mankind.

However, i assume you are saying these assaults are mental or psychic. In which case i hope you seek mental help before you hurt yourself or someone you love. Schizophrenia is no joke.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Ok, I will have to concede and admit you are correct about one thing: there's no reason they should have the same morality and ethics as us.

Thank you, and i also admit i certainly do not know if they will come in peace or not. I just hold the believe that until the time comes, we simply do not know.

Ive always held the belief that due to the vastness of space, it may simply be impossible for another species to ever reach us. Obviously, some form of faster than light travel will be necissary, or perhaps the old "wormhole" idea. I honestly doubt that, due the the enormous scale of our amazing universe, that even IF an alien species wanted to go looking for others, it would be nearly impossible. With the billions of galaxies in our known universe (and some say our visible universe might be as little as .1 % of whats really out there), each with upwards of a trilion stars, each of those capable of having orbiting planets, the logistics are astounding. It is so beyond the proverbial needle in a haystack its ridiculous.

While the universe might be teeming with life (and i fully expect it to be simply due to size), each and every little civilization might be an island unto itself, with never a way to reach the others or even know they are not alone.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
The reason I was arguing the point I was arguing is because if we reached a state where we were forced to exterminate another species for their resources that would indicate we didn't use the resources on our own planet in a sustainable way... it would indicate we ravaged the Earth and used all the resources with little regard for the environment of our own planet. And then if we were to continue that unsustainable ravaging by forcefully stealing the resources from another sentient species that would be the final proof to say the Human species was nothing but a careless viral species leaving a trail of destruction and death behind us where ever we go... that is not how I want to think of the Human species, I would like to believe we a better than that... after all, we are here discussing how terrifying that would be if a species like that invaded Earth... I don't want to believe that we are capable of being our own worste nightmare, and I would like to think other self-aware species (especially ones capable of interstellar travel) are humble enough to make this same realization.

I dont honestly believe in a malicious alien race. My honest worry is a dangerous indifference.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
No... life forms on planets with ALL the necessary resources. There are countless planets which contain multiple of the resources required, in fact even the rarest resources on Earth can be found in abundance else where... for example there are entire planets made of diamond. And we've even found multiple planets like Earth which contain virtually all the resources we think life needs. There is absolutely no reason to target a planet which already has life when it would be simple to find the necessary resources on other uninhabited planets.

And what do you do when you have harvested each and everyone of those within reach and the only thing left has life? One thing you might be missing; some theorists have actually posited that life would be exactly what they would want to harvest, any mineral wealth would be secondary. And it makes perfect sense, chlorophyll would be extremely rare, only occuring on planets with life.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Yes he can think logically with exceptional accuracy, but he often fails to think in practical terms with exceptional accuracy. Furthermore, he is not a psychologist or a sociologist, and he doesn't understand consciousness anywhere as well as he thinks he does. He has limited ability to interact with other people and is often in his own fantasy land of imagination. Hawking basically said any alien species we come across will likely be aggressive and dominant... I am not saying it's impossible for an alien species to be malevolent, I'm saying the probability of us having to face such a species is dramatically lower than the probability of us having to face a benevolent species.

I believe a poster a few messages up addresed this better than i ever could. Not sure why so many people on ATS are so anti-Hawking. For a man of his limited physical abilities, he is brilliant, a great public speaker (or used to be when he was capable) and is able to put some of the most complicated theories and ideas into easy to understand language that the simplest layman can grasp. Well, as much as a person of our intelligence can grasp, anyways. I find the man fascinating.
edit on 19-6-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



Have you any examples to share with us of
  1. Prof. Hawking's inability to think accurately as well as practically?

  2. His faulty understanding of consciousness?

  3. His tendency to live in the 'fantasy land of imagination'?

1. I never said he has an "inability to think accurately", I said he often fails to consider things in practical terms because he mostly thinks only in purely analytical and logical terms. 2. I also never said he has a "faulty understanding of consciousness", I said he isn't an expert on consciousness, that's not his area of expertise. 3. As for the last point, I was simply referring to a fact you stated, he is a theoretical physicist and gets paid to think about things. While he may not be able to do much travelling on his own two legs, he can explorer the nature of the Universe in his mind, and he spends a vast amount of time doing just that. I am not implying this makes him loony or out of touch with reality, am I saying it means he has less time to interact with other sentient humans and have time to truly understand the deeper workings of consciousness.


Regarding his understanding of consciousness, I honestly cannot recall ever hearing or reading anything by him on the subject, so unless you can quote specific references I must regretfully conclude you are making this up.

And you haven't read anything by him on that subject because he is a theoretical physicist and not a psychologist. However, he has taken it upon himself to write about the supposed psychology of aliens, which was mentioned in one of the points in the OP. He said "I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans,". Here he is using the psychology of early human explorers and equating it to an advanced alien species capable of interstellar travel, it's just simply absurd.


Really, this is all just slander, isn't it?

No actually, none of this is slander. It's perfectly valid criticism. He isn't some type of god I'm afraid to tell you, not every word that comes out his mouth is perfectly accurate. He makes mistakes like everyone else and often says stupid things. Many people simply fail to see when he makes such mistakes because they have placed him on a pedestal and they think he's some sort of super brain... in actuality he's been wrong about several of his theories.

At the end of one of his documentaries, after explaining his theory about the creation of the Universe, he claims that science has finally "worked it all out... an answer that took more than 3000 years of Human endeavor". I mean honestly... give me a break, we have not worked it all out. We are FAR from it. We have more left to discover than everything we have learnt so far... and there is certainly no reason to assume his version of how the Universe was created is absolutely correct, it does have several problems and doesn't completely explain all the data. There are many competing theories which are equality as plausible, but none of them claim to be the conclusive theory of everything because none of them are perfect.


Or even that, in the pursuit of their interests, they may do us harm without intending to or even really noticing us.

In such a case they would not be a malicious or aggressive species in terms of psychology... unintentional harm to us, whether noticing it or not, does not indicate anything about their frame of consciousness.


Your arguments against his advice are essentially Utopian ones. You believe that if a species can achieve interstellar travel it must necessarily be advanced in ethics as well as technology. Yet nothing from our own experience supports this. For all its cultural and scientific progress, humankind has not changed its moral character one jot from the Paleolithic to the present day. The world is as full of evil deeds – and good ones – as it ever was.

You are of course correct, as I stated in my post at the top of this page... nothing guarantees they will be benevolent. But my main argument was not about that, it's about the fact they would have no legitimate reason to attack us unless they feel like wasting resources and soldiers for no good reason, because the Universe is abundant with resources available to any species who can travel between star systems. What sort of highly advanced species would make such ridiculous decisions?


What if their interests conflict with ours? Do you honestly believe such a situation could never arise?
Again, as I stated at the top of this page, I am not saying such a scenario is impossible, I am saying it's highly improbable and the more likely alien contact scenario would not involves an inter-species war.... and that is the whole point of this thread, to dispel misconceptions about what is likely to happen if we do ever make contact with another species.


And until we do know, it is safest to assume they'll be just like us – selfish, smart and armed to the teeth.

Even if they were selfish, smart and armed to the teeth there's no good reason to assume they would attack us unless they like slaughtering other species for fun... which is, once again, highly implausible.
edit on 19/6/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by putnamcrab
Looky here Dinky Do! Count yourself lucky that your on the side of the debunkers "looking" for hardcore evidence you'll never find, and not on the side of the poor victim who gets assaulted sometimes 10 times aday everyday.

But if you still need proof? Spend sometime with an experiencer, all you need is to give up 30 days of your time!
You will walk away a changed man! So there's your chance for proof!!!

Yah Brah PROOF!

If you are sometimes assaulted up to ten times a day, providing video evidence will be easy, and you will be the one to break this astounding discovery upon mankind.

However, i assume you are saying these assaults are mental or psychic. In which case i hope you seek mental help before you hurt yourself or someone you love. Schizophrenia is no joke.


Your A Troll!

Its funny how its easier to classify somebody mentally unstable, instead of listening to what they have to say. Think about the diagnosis Schizophrenia... "I don't believe what they are saying" so "They're delusional"
If it was a cut and dried diagnosis, you wouldn't get so many conflicting opinions on an single diagnosis!
edit on 19-6-2012 by putnamcrab because: spellings off



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by nightbringr
 



Ive always held the belief that due to the vastness of space, it may simply be impossible for another species to ever reach us. Obviously, some form of faster than light travel will be necissary, or perhaps the old "wormhole" idea. I honestly doubt that, due the the enormous scale of our amazing universe, that even IF an alien species wanted to go looking for others, it would be nearly impossible.

Yes, you are certainly correct about that. Although wormholes aren't the only possibility, there are multiple theoretical loop holes which might be possibly used to get around that problem. As for actually finding planets with life, I assume our radio emissions, although not very far reaching in terms of the galaxy, would still make it much easier to locate our planet amongst a large number of planets... they may also find us by searching for planets which seem to have the the right conditions for life, in a similar way as us. They may also have sort of advanced technique which actually allows them to scan for biological life at very long distances, who knows really.


And what do you do when you have harvested each and everyone of those within reach and the only thing left has life? One thing you might be missing; some theorists have actually posited that life would be exactly what they would want to harvest, any mineral wealth would be secondary. And it makes perfect sense, chlorophyll would be extremely rare, only occuring on planets with life.

Your first sentence doesn't make much sense, as you stated yourself, planets harboring life would be extremely far apart and extremely hard to find for any other species. It would be virtually impossible for them to use such a large area of resources that they finally come up against a life-harboring planet in the process, and even if they did, they could easily afford to skip that planet and keep moving on. As for a species which might need biological life to survive, again that is a very unlikely probability, because it's a stupid trait for any species to have based on how rare life in the Universe is. You are putting forward theories which might be possible, but that doesn't mean they are highly probable, because they're far from it. They are very unlikely situations, and again the point of this this thread is to point out the most likely scenarios.


Not sure why so many people on ATS are so anti-Hawking. For a man of his limited physical abilities, he is brilliant, a great public speaker (or used to be when he was capable) and is able to put some of the most complicated theories and ideas into easy to understand language that the simplest layman can grasp.

I am no where near "anti-Hawking", he has contributed a lot to our scientific understanding of reality and I respect him a great deal. He is a very brilliant man and could easily be considered a genius in certain areas, but those areas do not reach into the realm of alien psychology. Many people fail to actually think of him as a human, they have this idea in their head is is some type of mysterious super-genius, and the robotic voice certainly adds to that illusion for many people. In reality there are a lot of scientists much smarter than he is, he has simply become the poster boy of science, but he is not the smartest scientist or the largest contributor to our scientific knowledge. He does get things wrong some times and people need to start to understand that fact...
edit on 19/6/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Yes, you are certainly correct about that. Although wormholes aren't the only possibility, there are multiple theoretical loop holes which might be possibly used to get around that problem. As for actually finding planets with life, I assume our radio emissions, although not very far reaching in terms of the galaxy, would still make it much easier to locate our planet amongst a large number of planets... they may also find us by searching for planets which seem to have the the right conditions for life, in a similar way as us. They may also have sort of advanced technique which actually allows them to scan for biological life at very long distances, who knows really.

So in this paragraph you produce extremely unlikely hypothetical arguments about the way they might locate us. Our radio waves have barely reached anywhere when you consider the vastness of space. By comparison, if the earths diameter encompased the entirety of space, our radio signals would not have reached as much as a milimeter. Searching planet by planet for those capable of having life, even though there are most likely billions of trillions of planets in the universe? Do the math. And your theoretical loop holes are just that, theoretical. And then this..........

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Your first sentence doesn't make much sense, as you stated yourself, planets harboring life would be extremely far apart and extremely hard to find for any other species. It would be virtually impossible for them to use such a large area of resources that they finally come up against a life-harboring planet in the process, and even if they did, they could easily afford to skip that planet and keep moving on. As for a species which might need biological life to survive, again that is a very unlikely probability, because it's a stupid trait for any species to have based on how rare life in the Universe is. You are putting forward theories which might be possible, but that doesn't mean they are highly probable, because they're far from it. They are very unlikely situations, and again the point of this this thread is to point out the most likely scenarios.

You give ME guff for using unlikely theoretical arguments? Can you not see the hypocracy?

Also, im not sure why you are assuming life in the universe is so rare. And i never once said they NEEDED to harvest life. Why do you assume they need to? Perhaps it makes their lives easier, and, since they are not restricted to earth bound morals, feel no regret in harvesting us. No more than the farmer feels regret at harvesting the cows.

And really thats what it comes down to, doesnt it? We as people, humans of the planet earth, harvest life for our own sustinance. And not just to stay alive. We kill them for trivial things like fur coats, skin creams and more. And we often think we are high and mighty with our morals. But does that matter one lick to the chicken who is about to have its head cut off? Are you a vegitarian? We may appear as nothing more important than cattle to them. Not sure why you cannot grasp this.
edit on 19-6-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by nightbringr
 



So in this paragraph you produce extremely unlikely hypothetical arguments about the way they might locate us.

That doesn't matter, this discussion is about what is likely to happen if they did find, regardless of whether they have or will.


Also, im not sure why you are assuming life in the universe is so rare. And i never once said they NEEDED to harvest life. Why do you assume they need to? Perhaps it makes their lives easier, and, since they are not restricted to earth bound morals, feel no regret in harvesting us. No more than the farmer feels regret at harvesting the cows.

Well as I said, we presume cows are non-sentient animals.. it would be a different story if we thought cows were self-aware creatures with deep thoughts and emotions. But once again, I am not saying it's impossible for a species to want to harvest us for something, I'm saying it's highly unlikely considering the facts. Any species which couldn't survive without the ability to travel between stars and harvest the life on other planets isn't likely to last very long. In fact one of the points in that article is that aliens wont come here to eat us, and yes that is a misconception which I can agree with... I just think it's stupid to believe there's any good chance that we'll be visited by aliens who simply come here to eat us... very low chances my friend, and that's the whole point.
edit on 19/6/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by nightbringr
 



So in this paragraph you produce extremely unlikely hypothetical arguments about the way they might locate us.

That doesn't matter, this discussion is about what is likely to happen if they did find, regardless of whether they have or will.

Exactly. Which is why we should be both allowed to make hypothetical propositions. Not sure why you tell me not to then make your own is all.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Well as I said, we presume cows are non-sentient animals.. it would be a different story if we thought cows were self-aware creatures with deep thoughts and emotions.

They are sentient. Self-aware is another matter.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
But once again, I am not saying it's impossible for a species to want to harvest us for something, I'm saying it's highly unlikely considering the facts. Any species which couldn't survive without the ability to travel between stars and harvest the life on other planets isn't likely to last very long. In fact one of the points in that article is that aliens wont come here to eat us, and yes that is a misconception which I can agree with... I just think it's stupid to believe there's any good chance that we'll be visited by aliens who simply come here to eat us... very low chances my friend, and that's the whole point.

I agree wholeheartedly for the most part. I dont see why they would want to eat us either. But harvesting the planet for its chloroform might help them teraform other planets. Or perhaps our own to suit their own uses.

You keep making the point of this all being very unlikely, and i keep making the point that we simply cannot understand their motives. I dont think it terribly unlikely that they might find our planet quite usable for their own needs. Perhaps they need a new home. Would we just welcome them with open arms when they start using our resources for their own needs?

You may find that unlikely, i do not find it any less likely than any other scenerio for why they would come here. In fact, i see no reason at all for them to visit us unless they want something.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by nightbringr
 



You keep making the point of this all being very unlikely, and i keep making the point that we simply cannot understand their motives. I dont think it terribly unlikely that they might find our planet quite usable for their own needs.

No, we cannot know what their motives will be, but we can educated probabilistic guesses on what their motives may be. And it's not unlikely that our planet will be useful to them for certain things, however as I stated there is no reason to start an unnecessary conflict and take the losses involved with that conflict when there is most likely countless other planets with the same usability.


Perhaps they need a new home. Would we just welcome them with open arms when they start using our resources for their own needs?

And that is actually the most probable scenario you have offered so far, I'm surprised it took you so long to think of that actually. Yes I must admit that is a fairly likely reason for why an advanced species may visit us... and no we probably wouldn't welcome them with open arms... but I think what we can deduce from this is that it's really unclear whether we are likely to have first contact with a friendly species or with a malicious species. So really the misconception is that anyone can claim to have a firm answer for either case.


You may find that unlikely, i do not find it any less likely than any other scenerio for why they would come here. In fact, i see no reason at all for them to visit us unless they want something.

Yes, of course there is always going to be something they want. I've always personally believed the main motive and reason for them to come here would be because they want information regarding our species, they want to study us and learn from us and perhaps study our DNA, or what ever else... that seems very likely for any sort of highly advanced species, I just think knowledge and peaceful interaction would be appreciated much more than war and bloodshed for any truly advanced species. You will hardly ever, if at all, find a highly intelligent person who goes around picking fights.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
No, we cannot know what their motives will be, but we can educated probabilistic guesses on what their motives may be. And it's not unlikely that our planet will be useful to them for certain things, however as I stated there is no reason to start an unnecessary conflict and take the losses involved with that conflict when there is most likely countless other planets with the same usability.

I doubt they would take any loses, so i dont think that would factor into any equation of theirs.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
And that is actually the most probable scenario you have offered so far, I'm surprised it took you so long to think of that actually. Yes I must admit that is a fairly likely reason for why an advanced species may visit us... and no we probably wouldn't welcome them with open arms... but I think what we can deduce from this is that it's really unclear whether we are likely to have first contact with a friendly species or with a malicious species. So really the misconception is that anyone can claim to have a firm answer for either case.

It didnt take me that long. This was somthing i always considered. That being said, this might be the first thing we agree upon.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Yes, of course there is always going to be something they want. I've always personally believed the main motive and reason for them to come here would be because they want information regarding our species, they want to study us and learn from us and perhaps study our DNA, or what ever else... that seems very likely for any sort of highly advanced species, I just think knowledge and peaceful interaction would be appreciated much more than war and bloodshed for any truly advanced species. You will hardly ever, if at all, find a highly intelligent person who goes around picking fights.

See, this is where we diverge. If they are capable of FTL speed interstelar travel, they are probably so far advanced to us that they would view us as nothing more than a curiosity. They same way we view a new species we discover. Yes, there will be those who want to protect said species, and there will be those who want to use it for whatever it can provide. After all, beyond our perhaps (perhaps not) unique DNA and local flora and fauna, what could we offer them in terms of collective human knowledge? Nothing.

And a highly intelligent person can and will pick fights if it furthers their own gain. We see this all the time with corporations. These people do highly questionable things to further their own lot in life. And they are not stupid. Say what you will about the morals of CEOs of large, mulit-national corporations, but they are anything but stupid. The point being, yes. Intelligent people can do extremely reprehensible things in order to further their own lot in life.

Another thing to consider is this. What if they are NOT capable of FTL travel? They go into crygenic sleep to travel long distances. They have either used up the resources of their home planet and needed to move, or have become overpopulated and taken to terraforming other planets or moving to planets that will support them. Over millions of years, their species have taken over thousands if not millions of planets. During their journeys, they have discovered other, intelligent species. Some friendly, some not (whether you believe that possible or not, this is all supposition). In order to deal ensure their continuation as a species, they decide that any intelligent life must be exterminated in order to prevent them from reaching the space age and creating a competition for habitable planets.

This is not far fetched. In fact, this is much more plausable that your suppositions. We have seen it on earth since the first tribes formed. You may say that we are advanced and beyond that. I say we are not. Look at the competition still being played out in the world for needed resources. If this alien species fears that its own people may die if they have to compete for neede planets or resources, i maintain they will consider their own peoples needs over ours. And i understand that.

I think you have a very rosy view of life. Everywhere we look, survival of the fittest produces the fittest. The same should be quite natural for any alien race. They would not have become the dominant species of their own planet without bloodshed. Many other posters on this thread have made the same assertation. Might makes right. I wish it wasnt so and we could all just get along, but i simply dont believe that is the case, and i will always assume that a species will favor its own. Something to keep in mind, if you put any stock into the Kardashev scale (and ill post you the link after), even a type 3 civilization will have learned to harness the complete stellar output of an entire galaxy.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Here are my three truths about aliens that to me are indisputable.

1. Alien visitation will most likely come via natural means long before any other humanoid creature travels here. Nature's swimmers were traversing the oceans long before man, and it stands to reason that space will be traversed by a lifeform using natural means before synthetic vehicle travel will happen in any society.

2. Aliens will have to be peaceful in nature. This is simple. Any means of power generation required to traverse space could also be used to destroy other beings. If they evolved to that level, and have not blown themselves up, they're most likely not conflicted with each other, at least. Whether or not they would see us as an equal life form deserving of rights or even our lives, remains to be seen. I think that scenario is the scariest one of all.

3. Alien contact would result in complete and total terror and violence. Bottom line, we can't handle it. We would provoke any intelligent being we came into contact with.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
The biggest misconception about aliens:

That they don't taste delicious when roasted over a slow fire and basted with a molasses-oregano marinade.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


1. I never said he has an "inability to think accurately", I said he often fails to consider things in practical terms because he mostly thinks only in purely analytical and logical terms.

No, you said:


he often fails to think in practical terms with exceptional accuracy

If you don't know him personally, you can't possibly have any evidence of this. You're making it up.


2. I also never said he has a "faulty understanding of consciousness", I said he isn't an expert on consciousness.

No, you said:


he doesn't understand consciousness anywhere as well as he thinks he does.

Ergo, his understanding must be faulty. How do you know it is faulty? Was it something you read?


You haven't read anything by him on (the subject of consciousness) because he is a theoretical physicist and not a psychologist.

And by the same token, neither have you. So it seems you're just making things up. Again.


3. I was simply referring to a fact you stated, he is a theoretical physicist and gets paid to think about things... I saying it means he has less time to interact with other sentient humans and have time to truly understand the deeper workings of consciousness.

You have no idea how much human interaction there is in Prof. Hawking's life, and you are plainly forgetting that someone as seriously handicapped as he must have people round him all the time.


He has taken it upon himself to write about the supposed psychology of aliens... He said "I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans,". Here he is using the psychology of early human explorers and equating it to an advanced alien species capable of interstellar travel, it's just simply absurd.

You are reading 'psychology' into what a more perceptive reader would see as a plain statement of historical fact. The oppression of native Americans by European migrants took place for exigent political and economic reasons, not out of malice or some kind of psychological compulsion on the part of the Europeans. The planters and settlers were not especially malevolent; they were just trying to make a living and get rich if they could, while the native Americans were alternately an obstacle to their aims or an exploitable resource. As for the Christian missionaries, they did much damage but their intent was always, by its own lights, benevolent.

For the third time, what you are failing to understand is that it's not about psychology or morals, it's about politics, trade and culture shock. If we ever encounter a civilization more advanced and powerful than our own, it will almost certainly be to our detriment.


edit on 20/6/12 by Astyanax because: more bits and bobs.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Evolutionsend



This is simple. Any means of power generation required to traverse space could also be used to destroy other beings. If they evolved to that level, and have not blown themselves up, they're most likely not conflicted with each other, at least.

 


but what about their looking in and seeing that humans always and forever have killed each other and would they have a notion that if we kill each other why wouldn't we kill them also. This point made how would our own space flight be viewed by them, especially with regard to our maturing Black Projects and our ability to carry warfare into space domain.

At some point some other intelligent life forms have to consider "We" humans are not fit to be social and only fit to blow crap up.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
This thread is all hypothetical and very short on anything one can say are concrete facts. Although, if people are frightened about hostile aliens then I should like to remind them that UAVs have been reported for hundreds, if not thousands of years in our skies and haven't wiped us out yet



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


I have addressed this topic in my new Blog, UFO PERSPECTIVES and referenced an article which discusses the debate between Stephen Hawking and Jill Tarter of SETI regarding what we could expect from a visiting... or invading alien race. Always a great debate!

Read my post and get a link to that article here:

UFO Perspectives: Who is right? Hawking or Tarter?

Please check it out! Thanks much!



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
This thread is all hypothetical and very short on anything one can say are concrete facts. Although, if people are frightened about hostile aliens then I should like to remind them that UAVs have been reported for hundreds, if not thousands of years in our skies and haven't wiped us out yet


We don't wipe cows out... even though it is within our power too, mostly cause we need them!







 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join