Benevolent Intelligent ET Lifeforms Are A Pipedream

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
reply to post by Balkan

 

Hopefully ET's are like Bonobo's then and want to share and help and enlighten and help us to better ourselves.

That is all we can hope for.

I hope too, btw.

But I have my doubts...

Originally posted by Balkan
How do you sleep at night knowing you step on them and kill them by the thousands probably everyday driving in your car? I wash them down the toilet if I can't get them outside.

I only kill mosquitos and in rare cases parasites but I dont have any this year, so yes I usually let insects go.

You have a point, but I would ask you are you modeling your highly spiritual alien after your own concepts and beliefs. I do believe you may be! How do you know there are any such beings whatsoever?

I do not believe there are alien beings visting the Earth, I am not a believer, I only think it is not excludable nased on the incidentsm, some could exist, and if they do like those Greys, they couldn't care less about us, yet alon be hostile or friendly. But some could be if some cases are to be trusted they happened. Some could be friendly, others not, third could be neutral.

From what we already know, if they wanted invasion, we would already live in earth concentration camp... working for them... (who said we already are not doing exactly that, without even knowing it?)

With amount of UFO phenomenon, if even smallest percent of reporting was true, we are then visited, not only since first use of nuclear devices, but trough ages...

Originally posted by Balkan
I have several opinions and ideas about this subject I'd like to share.

There can be no benevolent intelligent ET, in my opinion. BIE is merely a projection by humans of their ideals, just like godmen and other fantasy characters we create in our imaginations. If this has already been covered, pardon me and bear with me, I don't follow modern UFO lore.

Homo sapiens is a predator, the only known creature that can leave their planet. This may possibly be an evolutionary progression to infest and dominate other planets. We are an apex predator. Does anyone doubt we would be exhibiting the same behavior on other planets?

Intelligent lifeforms that possess technology that enables them to leave their homeworld will almost certainly be predatory in nature. How else would they rise to the top of their foodchain?

We are not benevolent, nor ever have been as far as we can tell from history. We have and still do enslave (human slavery is at an all-time high currently) each other and other creatures, and treat all life and the planet, including ourselves, aggressively, violently, and with total disregard beyond anything that doesn't affect our livelyhood. Just like ants. They come running when something screws up too.

*snip*

And yet there's a fair amount of research which shows that even we humans, once our basic material needs are secure, become much more peaceful, well-adjusted, compassionate, empathetic, and so on. It seems natural that this would be so, and I think that this idea needs to be addressed before making such sweeping statements as yours.

Is it safe to assume that intelligent extraterrestrial civilizations -- the ones we have to worry about, at least, who've found ways to migrate between solar systems or send AI probes hundreds of light years -- have also found ways to ensure that all of its citizens have those basic material needs met?

I'm not sure. Interesting to ponder, though....

Personally, I think that humanity itself is within mere hundreds of years of being able to easily ensure adequate food, water, and housing for every single human being on the planet. And what also will help is the near-inevitable disintegration of the whole "my prophet is better than your prophet" mentality that so plagues us now. (Religion will persist, surely, but probably not with the same fanaticism.)

It's true that these changes will not mean that intra-species conflict disappears completely, but I do think the kinds of war and brutality you (the OP) mention in your post become less necessary and are perceived as much costlier when the parties to the conflict do not feel as if they're fighting for the necessities of survival.

Taking an even broader view, look at the historical trend at play. Science has *on average* greatly improved our quality of life and has significantly reduced the amount of suffering that most of us must endure in our lifetimes. And an increasing percentage of us have the time and luxury of being peaceful and compassionate in ways that most from prior generations would barely be able to comprehend.

Originally posted by Imtor
I only kill mosquitos and in rare cases parasites but I dont have any this year, so yes I usually let insects go.

But, that's not what I asked. How do you reconcile the fact that you kill hundreds of creatures, probably most of the time, without even realizing it? Your impact on the earth for example. Do you not drive a car? Do you not pollute? Do you throw your trash out like every body else?

Some could be friendly, others not, third could be neutral.

How could any natural creature be 'neutral'?

Originally posted by Balkan
But, that's not what I asked. How do you reconcile the fact that you kill hundreds of creatures, probably most of the time, without even realizing it? Your impact on the earth for example. Do you not drive a car? Do you not pollute? Do you throw your trash out like every body else?

As far as I know the meaning of malevolent or hostile is when you purposly kill/pollute/ with the intention to do harm. When you accidently stepped on an insect or killed smth without realizing, it is not because you wanted to do it, so does that make you hostile?

How could any natural creature be 'neutral'?

In the same way people are neutral to any animals most of the time. We do our thing, we don't even look or care that there is some bird on the tree, we don't care what animals communicate to each other and where they go, only zoologists do, but we are neutral and we don't care if there are animals around us or not, we do our business

Originally posted by SuperFrog
From what we already know, if they wanted invasion, we would already live in earth concentration camp... working for them... (who said we already are not doing exactly that, without even knowing it?)

Exactly why it's a stupid idea to be signalling our presence in space. We are working for someone, aren't we?

With amount of UFO phenomenon, if even smallest percent of reporting was true, we are then visited, not only since first use of nuclear devices, but trough ages...

Sorry, but I won't make that stretch. Lights in the sky don't equate we are being visited to me at all. It's possible. But it's just as possible they are as natural to earth as we are. People automatically assume they are 'aliens'. I do not. We have the same sort of phenomena on the ground in orbs (the naked eye ones, not out-of-focus particle photo crap), cemetary lights, etc, and those have been witnessed far into ancient history also. Like I said, I'm not into modern UFO alien mythology. There could be something to it, I'm not dismissing it entirely, it just seems like most of that lore seems to vomit forth from pseudo-science preachers and believers, and shady opportunists in general. Not my cup of tea.

Originally posted by Imtor
As far as I know the meaning of malevolent or hostile is when you purposly kill/pollute/ with the intention to do harm. When you accidently stepped on an insect or killed smth without realizing, it is not because you wanted to do it, so does that make you hostile?

Does a bear killing you for food qualify as hostile? Evil? 'Bad'?

In the same way people are neutral to any animals most of the time. We do our thing, we don't even look or care that there is some bird on the tree, we don't care what animals communicate to each other and where they go, only zoologists do, but we are neutral and we don't care if there are animals around us or not, we do our business

Does neutrality include homo sapiens global foot print on the earth and it's natural resources? Do you sleep well when you put out your garbage at night knowing there's a good chance the crap that can't be recycled will be dumped in the ocean? Or urinate your medications into the sewer system which eventually ends up in your own water sources? Don't take this personally, but I find your comment that people are neutral to animals most of the time to be very naive. Do you have any idea that human beings are the current cause of what we consider the greatest animal extinction event in known history? I'm not trying to come across as some kind of eco hippy. I'm merely stating I could point out hundreds of ways humans negatively impact the environment, and so could you if you took the time to think about. Isn't it interesting that we tend not to that, however? Human ecology. Look into it.

Originally posted by Balkan
Does a bear killing you for food qualify as hostile? Evil? 'Bad'?

Never heard of killing a bear for food, maybe you meant for hunting or making clothes - of course it means hostile, killing porks for meat or to eat them is also hostile but unless any aliens show that they want to kill humans to eat them or use something of them, I don't see why they would be hostile to humans.

Does neutrality include homo sapiens global foot print on the earth and it's natural resources? Do you sleep well when you put out your garbage at night knowing there's a good chance the crap that can't be recycled will be dumped in the ocean? Or urinate your medications into the sewer system which eventually ends up in your own water sources? Don't take this personally, but I find your comment that people are neutral to animals most of the time to be very naive. Do you have any idea that human beings are the current cause of what we consider the greatest animal extinction event in known history? I'm not trying to come across as some kind of eco hippy. I'm merely stating I could point out hundreds of ways humans negatively impact the environment, and so could you if you took the time to think about. Isn't it interesting that we tend not to that, however? Human ecology. Look into it.

Neutral means - not purposly causing harm... all the examples you gave, unless you do it purposly to cut down trees to harm animals, doing something and it having a negative effect on another creature without meaning to cause harm - that makes you neither hostile, and yes you are neutral

You cannot call hostile something that you aren't doing purposly to cause harm, if you are careless, that still makes you neutral not hostile...

Hostile is - I am now going to cut down the rainforests because I can and I like without them
Hostile is - I will now kill the bear to make clothes and earn $$ ouf ot it
Neutral is - I threw my plastic bottle in a can for paper, this plastic bottle never went to recycling because someoen else didn't sort it properly, it burned/released poisnous oxides/ started poisoning - - I had no idea that happened, does that make me hostile to nature?

Btw I do care what I throw and where, just giving neutral examples

reply to post by Imtor
We'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the input.

reply to post by Balkan


Apex predator huh? I liked that movie too, I'd give anything to fly.

I think that microcosm and macrocosm is likely existent in the Universe. After all, we are all made of the same star stuff - so I think that it is safe to assume - life elsewhere likely takes similar roads to evolve into an intelligent sentient being. Now, this is assuming that ET exists, has physicality, and emotion. I am not saying they would have to be carbon based - or couldn't have telepathic abilities - but the creatures would still need physicality in some capacity to develop the mathematics and practical applications needed to move into a technological era.

This of course is assuming that space, like the sea, isn't filled with it's own creatures undetectable to us. Nasa's thether and all the UFO's around it, comes to mind for some reason. (I know, I know, "That was ice!!!" LOL.)

So, for an intelligent race of beings to raise up from the oceans and start crawling on their world...eventually they would have to develop into a being capable of manipulating it's surroundings. It would need to be able to make tools and craft. So I don't find, the concept that they might be similar to us, that far-fetched. At least physically.

Benevolence and life. Hmmm. I guess I'm a realist. Life is never benevolent. It can at times be filled with compassion and love, but it is more often a trial and unfair. I can't imagine space being very different. I can't imagine any superior intelligence having not come to terms with this truth. ET may be advanced, but if it's alive and knows death, then it probably isn't so different from us than we think.

Now my question is, IF it is an organic life form - doesn't IT need fuel? I would think that it needs to eat. Where would they stop off to get these things? To restock? Certainly non-organic materials would be readily available, for that they could stop off at many places - but that doesn't mean food is abundant throughout the Universe. There are plenty of reason why they might be here. Food being one of the most obvious reasons. We might just be a stop over.

I do think there are wars in heaven - it is a pipe dream to think it's peaceful. Not to mention space itself being dangerous, ask any astrophysicist or astronomer. Space is anything but benevolent or peaceful. Microcosm - macrocosm. As above so below, as within so without. I think it's that easy to understand. Most things usually are.

~ Serra

Originally posted by Balkan

I disagree. I think it is possible. We have a model to study. Us. I think that's a good start. I guess we don't count in some way because we are 'bad'? heh

Not really, I don't consider us an example that can lead to something years, possibly eons more evolved then us primarily because the human species has been proven unsuccessful as a whole. I would consider a species that can make ships to traverse space and possibly time a success.

Originally posted by Balkan

In any event, I am 100% percent certain that you are incorrect because I know someone who I trust implicitly that has had encounters and his only side effect from the experience was improved health and rediscovered love for himself and humanity.

Ah, now we get to the heart of your opinion. Thank you for sharing.

edit on 26-6-2012 by Balkan because: (no reason given)

Opinion? It's not an opinion...it's what I can verify with all of my senses including my most important sense, my gut. I have only become interested about this subject because of my relationship with this person whose testimony is quite the contrary of your "theory" and last I checked testimony is completely admissible in a court of law in most countries.

My argument to this would be.. if you want to make this "as above so below" microcosm macrocosm fit into the universal model of life and evolution then take the most "evolved" beings registered so far - Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Pacal and these men ALL taught peace, love and benevolence. There you have it evolution chooses cooperation and love... it is more likely that the "Aliens" are friendly than evil using this model.

Originally posted by Serraphina
Apex predator huh? I liked that movie too, I'd give anything to fly.

Which movie? I want to see it.

After all, we are all made of the same star stuff - so I think that it is safe to assume - life elsewhere likely takes similar roads to evolve into an intelligent sentient being. Now, this is assuming that ET exists, has physicality, and emotion. I am not saying they would have to be carbon based - or couldn't have telepathic abilities - but the creatures would still need physicality in some capacity to develop the mathematics and practical applications needed to move into a technological era.

Agreed. And I will point out (again) that I am only using earth and it's creatures/us for an idea of what to expect from other creatures. Can we agree that life could possibly evolve on many other planets in a similiar dog-eat-dog evolution-based progression? I can. I don't see how a benevolent species can rise to the top of the food chain. My argument has never been that these intelligent ET are human-like, only that they very likely, benevolent or otherwise, share the same instinctual survival and social instincts. Our planet is filled with mammals that have these instincts. I think it's very likely that intelligent ET also have these instincts. Again, why wouldn't they? They are natural beings, just as we and the rest of the planet are.

This of course is assuming that space, like the sea, isn't filled with it's own creatures undetectable to us. Nasa's thether and all the UFO's around it, comes to mind for some reason. (I know, I know, "That was ice!!!" LOL.)

I wonder what they're eating?

So, for an intelligent race of beings to raise up from the oceans and start crawling on their world...eventually they would have to develop into a being capable of manipulating it's surroundings. It would need to be able to make tools and craft. So I don't find, the concept that they might be similar to us, that far-fetched. At least physically.

I'm more concerned with their instinctual behavior.

Benevolence and life. Hmmm. I guess I'm a realist. Life is never benevolent. It can at times be filled with compassion and love, but it is more often a trial and unfair. I can't imagine space being very different. I can't imagine any superior intelligence having not come to terms with this truth. ET may be advanced, but if it's alive and knows death, then it probably isn't so different from us than we think.

Stop. This thread is also a social experiement showing how adverse human beings are when it comes to the idea of them being more animal than they like to think. You're supposed to tell me I'm crazy, a loon, and let the thread die. But yeah, I agree. Thanks.

Originally posted by lordaqua
Not really, I don't consider us an example that can lead to something years, possibly eons more evolved then us primarily because the human species has been proven unsuccessful as a whole. I would consider a species that can make ships to traverse space and possibly time a success.

I would hardly call a creature that pollutes and squanders it's resources like ants building an anthill a success. We have not yet proved our intelligence has any real longlasting survivability.

Opinion? It's not an opinion...it's what I can verify with all of my senses including my most important sense, my gut.

In my opinion, only relying on your gut is like relying on psychic readings. When they are right (and they can be, no doubt about it), it becomes confirmation bias, because most certainly people have wrong feelings, but dismiss them out of hand. I do listen to my gut, but I also avail myself of my other senses.

I have only become interested about this subject because of my relationship with this person whose testimony is quite the contrary of your "theory" and last I checked testimony is completely admissible in a court of law in most countries.

Testimony is also widely accepted as one of the least accurate means of gathering evidence we have. They tend to vary widely by many people who can all witness the same event. I'm not dismissing any of your ideas, you could very well be right, and I wrong. Also, I don't have a theory. These are just ideas and opinions.

reply to post by lordaqua


I don't think they are either, rather like us, they are likely quite capable of both malice and compassion and every emotion in between.

I understand the penchant for people to want to liken Christ and Buddha and other spiritual leaders to ET. However, we at some time, gotta stop looking up, and start looking at each other. If we need someone to come down and save us from ourselves- again, benevolent or not - we are in trouble. They already told us in our religions, that we wouldn't like revelations should they need to make themselves known again.

Benevolently, us gone off this planet - extinct, would be the most compassionate thing to do. At least, for the planet. It would be better for every other plant, creature and insect in our world. I am not saying I want this to happen. I don't. I love life, it's trying at times, but I want to live. I just think an advanced race of sentient beings might not look very kindly on us - not that their malevolent per see - likely simply at a loss as to what to do with us.

~ Serra

reply to post by Balkan


Hey Balkan,

I just watched Chronicle. They mentioned apex predator in the movie. It's really good actually. It illustrates why we wouldn't want telekinetic powers.

~ Serra

Originally posted by Balkan

Originally posted by lordaqua
Not really, I don't consider us an example that can lead to something years, possibly eons more evolved then us primarily because the human species has been proven unsuccessful as a whole. I would consider a species that can make ships to traverse space and possibly time a success.

I would hardly call a creature that pollutes and squanders it's resources like ants building an anthill a success. We have not yet proved our intelligence has any real longlasting survivability.

Yes that is that is precisely correct - humans are so far unsuccessful. Not to say that we don't still have the potential and avenue for success but that we are nowhere near there as of today. We beings "down here" are far from successful and we can only fathom what a species that has achieved free energy and space travel is like and what it took to make such astonishing breakthroughs.

With that said using humans and the way that they operate as somehow a gauge for measuring or quantifying the evolution of another "hypothetical" species is full of holes. In my opinion it's more likely that they are far more benevolent than malevolent. I'm not put off by neutrality either.

reply to post by Balkan


Humans haven't really become organized to a point that we can conquer space in any valuable way. It seems we need some revolutionary shift in behavior before we will be able to work together, with open minds. One way in which we could do that is to adopt an ethic of universal brotherhood, and ever expanding knowledge. Such a race would have the capacity to truly escape their planet, and would likely be benevolent.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Apologies, I missed your comment.

And yet there's a fair amount of research which shows that even we humans, once our basic material needs are secure, become much more peaceful, well-adjusted, compassionate, empathetic, and so on.

Source? Wealthy people as a collective must be much more enlightened than we would have imagined. Take the materials away and see what happens. I guess we should make sure we never run out of resources, huh?

Watch how morals disappear in a crowd of panicked people and what an individual will do when the survival instinct kicks in.

It seems natural that this would be so, and I think that this idea needs to be addressed before making such sweeping statements as yours.

How does it seem natural that this could be so? I feel I've given compelling arguments, even examples in nature, that show otherwise.

Is it safe to assume that intelligent extraterrestrial civilizations -- the ones we have to worry about, at least, who've found ways to migrate between solar systems or send AI probes hundreds of light years -- have also found ways to ensure that all of its citizens have those basic material needs met?

I don't think it's safe to assume that at all for reasons I've already stated.

Personally, I think that humanity itself is within mere hundreds of years of being able to easily ensure adequate food, water, and housing for every single human being on the planet.

I don't see that at all. In fact, I feel history shows us that war is inevitable and there will likely be a shifting in the powers that be. Am I psychic? Nope.

It's true that these changes will not mean that intra-species conflict disappears completely.

I doubt if it would make much of a dent. It would take a lot more than the end of religion for the human animal to ever live in utopian societies.

Taking an even broader view, look at the historical trend at play. Science has *on average* greatly improved our quality of life and has significantly reduced the amount of suffering that most of us must endure in our lifetimes. And an increasing percentage of us have the time and luxury of being peaceful and compassionate in ways that most from prior generations would barely be able to comprehend.

I'm guessing you like modern times a lot better than the dark ages also. Glad to see I'm not alone in this.