If Humans advanced will they invade extraterrestrial civilizations in the name spreading democracy?

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by tallcool1

Originally posted by freedomSlave
It is the religious aspect i think might be a little funny to watch


These kinds of comments always somewhat baffle me. I really don't understand why absolute proof of aliens would affect the religious at all...if that's what you were meaning.
I am a Christian myself. Granted, I'm not one of those "Christians" that are all bound by religious dogma and people burning in hell nonsense - but I am an "unorthodox" Christian nonetheless and I do believe that there are likely aliens out there somewhere. I don't think any have ever been to Earth, but that's a different thread.

Why is it you believe that proof of aliens would affect the religious at all? How do aliens landing on Earth negate the belief in God or (name your diety)? Just curious...and if that's not what you meant, then I apologize.



im not religious first of all but doesn't the bible say god is the supreme being? aliens would basically disprove what the bible attempts to teach. what if the aliens have their own "religion" and force their religion upon us? similar to how Christianity was forced onto other races non native to it. It might not have a direct impact right away on the current belivers, but down the line as your children are growing up into the new post alien world that was not available to their parents, they would likely take in the current aspect of religious teachings in place, and over time, Christianity and pretty much all current religions as we know it would change or cease to exist.




posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
If the aliens don't see eye to eye with our beliefs than they will be toast.....
.....
well, maybe we might be the ones who will be serving toast to the aliens. They may keep a few of us around as servants after we start a war.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   
It's a good point and why some scientists think advertising our own presence to the rest of the universe could be dangerous. If a smarter ET race found earth with all its resources, maybe they would treat us like humans treated those they believed were less smarter in the past. We don't have a great history ourselves, when it comes to the discovery of lands with resources we needed or wanted.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
It somewhat painful to even reply to this thread.....but some of the assumptions of in this thread are so mind numbing and small minded it can't be helped.

1. Why, why, why, would we EVER invade for resources. This is ridiculous, the sheer logistics alone make this idea improbable. The amount of resources we have available to us in the asteroid belt alone should make this unnecessary, not to mention many of the other "nearby" worlds orbiting close stars. Can you imagine the cost in resources it would take to, travel, invade, mine, then return, whatever it is we might be after? I guess not, or this idea probably would never enter your head. Hmm let's see, we've got about a billion tons of gold(the most important element in space travel) in a single nearby asteroid, or we can travel 200+ light years and smash and grab some poor slug worm species's stuff cause, well, we're big bad humans....? Really? The only way this will ever become a problem is if we allow epa like organizations to "preserve" the natural state of our solar system and instead force us to go kill things as they do on this planet.

2. Invading for slave labor is out, we already have pretty good robotics as it is, if you have seen some of the control theory videos around you'll know what I mean. We certainly are not going to be raping and breeding with aliens, unless you get really really bored and the internet connection was down and they have some type of orafice that would be up to the task.

3. The only way the avatar thing works is if we have a situation were there is a material that is indigienous one and only one planet, ala the spice in dune, considering we are fully capable of turning mercury into gold and restructuring elements of one kind into another, I don't see how this would be a problem. The only reason we are not doing it now is it takes extreme amounts of electricity. Right now it costs about 60,000$ to produce 1$ worth of gold, if we had adequate solar power it would be nearly free to do, and turning mercury into gold is difficult, where as, making other elements is not nearly as costly.

4. The only reason to invade a habatible planet, is for that habitat. Right now terraforming is out of our reach in terms of scale and time. Yes it would be "possible" to attempt some form of small scale terraforming but again, the only real hindrance beside the time it would take (thousands of years) is power, it simply takes to much electricity to morph on element to the other. Using electricity is the only practical way to do such things because chemical reactions take mass and catalysts. Can you imagine making a baking soda and vinegar volcano large enough to produce co2 that would have an effect on a global scale? Maybe you can if you are a big fan of Nancy P. but the sheer mass involved in the reaction....????

Anyway, Im not calling anyone stupid, I just don't think many of you are thinking objectively about the process that would be involved here and people have watched a few to many sci-fi movies that are seriously skewing your preconception of the idea.
edit on 2-7-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I can almost guarantee that we will end up warring against whatever intelligent species we come across first in the cosmos. Resources may be a reason for it, it may be for religious reasons, or it may just be good old fashioned hate spawned by fear. Humans have a tendency to not like things that are different than themselves (hence the widespread bigotry in the world). Imagine how our species will feel when we encounter an intelligent being that looks nothing like a human. I guarantee it won't go like Star Trek.

Just look at the way humans treat other humans. If we can subject our own species to some of the horrible things we do, I see us having no problems doing far worse to some other species, just because we can. In fact one thing that I believe many alien invasion movies get wrong is us being the helpless resistance, in reality we would be the heartless conquerors subjecting/annihilating the life on the other planet (something Avatar got right). And all the people in charge would have to say to placate the masses would be "National Security." Nevermind the fact that the other race had no clue we existed until we carpet bombed them with several nuclear weapons.
edit on 2-7-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 


I think you are viewing some of these things from today's technology and worth. If we have the technology to reach and interact with another intelligent species, don't you think that the energy and distance to reach, interact, and mine another planet in another solar system would be a lot more cost effective? We could be talking millenia in the future here and by then all the resources in the asteroid belt could be expended or something.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


I don't think anything you said helps your case at all.

I am talking about current technologies we have that already remove the need invade any distant planet, especially for the reasons previously highlighted in this thread.

I outlined existing technologies that will advance significantly based on one determining factor, increased cheep electricity. Something that is attainable in the next 100 years.

I outlined the fact that any resource we could need can be gotten far easier from nearby sources that we already know to be devoid of life and rich in minerals. Not to mention the much closer proximity, thereby, negating the point you made about the ease of crossing distance, not matter how easy, there is less distance involved in nearby objects than far ones and thus less time and resources. I think you dramatically under estimate the amount of material available to us in our own solar system, and especially that of other nearby massive rocky planets found.

How is it that you talk about nuclear carpet bombing, when likely, in this supposed future we would have replaced nuclear weapons with something more practical and powerful. How can you read my post and not extrapolate that the technologies I have outlined currently would not advance as well in this hypothetical situation?

Why, when I am the only one outlining certain advanced technologies that exist, do you assume Im not taking the chances of future advancement of those technologies into account?

No, Im afraid it is many of you, that are only viewing this scenario from the perspective of todays technology and civil issues.




I can almost guarantee that we will end up warring against whatever intelligent species we come across first in the cosmos.


While I do agree with the sentiment, I think most of the arguments posed for it here, are very short sighted.
edit on 2-7-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by starwarsisreal
 

We'll try to spread something for sure, if we do make contact wth extraterrestrials . Democracy, Sharia Law or even gonorrhea.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 


Our civil issues are issues that have been with us since we climbed out of the trees. We kill other humans for something as simple as not liking the color of your skin. What makes you think we'd treat any alien races any better? You are right in that we'd probably carpet bomb them with something far more powerful and devastating than nuclear weapons, but seeing as how we humans haven't even attempted that against each other I used it as an example of how little we'd care for a species that didn't look like us.

You do realize that the resources in our solar system are finite right? Eventually they will run out or be used and we'd have to look elsewhere for more. Not to mention as our race continues to grow, we will need to colonize other planets. These new colonies will need resources as well. Not to mention past colonial expansions that we humans have taken part in have shown what we do to the indigenous species that happens to live there. And please don't say that we'd look for someplace uninhabited by intelligent life because history shows we could care less about that.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by starwarsisreal
 




If Humans advanced will they invade extraterrestrial civilizations in the name spreading democracy?

It's true. In current evolutionary state, we are like a virus that spreads and destroys everything in its path like what Agent Smith said in the Matrix.....

...it's quite sad. But I attribute it to lack of education and spiritual/psychological development.

Notice for example pockets of society in America where the average IQ is higher than the norm and you will see less kids being procreated, financial & societal responsibility. Look at Sweden, Norway, etc where there is SUPER low crime rates and almost empty prisons......

I think once IQ is raised by A.I. or some sort of Evolutionary spiritual leap, then we will cease to be a virus.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


We are a virus because there are just to many of us. The least valuable thing on the planet right now is human life, we as a species have gone from a general state of other humans being beneficial to our survival, to a state where they are a detriment to your exsistance, there is so much competition for resources, most of us could careless if someone we are never going to meet has a decent life because they are entirely replaceable. I don't think humanity has experienced this before.

We have experienced living with a separate intelligent species before. It's still up for debate how that ended, but if we encounter a new species while we ourselves are still under stress from our own exsistance, the outcome wont be pretty, especially if we have advanced to the point of rapid interstellar travel under those conditions.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by vind21
 


Our civil issues are issues that have been with us since we climbed out of the trees. We kill other humans for something as simple as not liking the color of your skin. What makes you think we'd treat any alien races any better? You are right in that we'd probably carpet bomb them with something far more powerful and devastating than nuclear weapons, but seeing as how we humans haven't even attempted that against each other I used it as an example of how little we'd care for a species that didn't look like us.

You do realize that the resources in our solar system are finite right? Eventually they will run out or be used and we'd have to look elsewhere for more. Not to mention as our race continues to grow, we will need to colonize other planets. These new colonies will need resources as well. Not to mention past colonial expansions that we humans have taken part in have shown what we do to the indigenous species that happens to live there. And please don't say that we'd look for someplace uninhabited by intelligent life because history shows we could care less about that.


The civil issues of today are not like the civil issues we came out of the tress with. They are far more complicated and motivated by very different factors. The results and situations may seem similar such as the crusades vs our current developing situation of christians vs muslims, I don't think anyone is worried about the catholic church declaring war on another religion as they did in the past.

I don't think you understand the significance of the experiments done in japan recently. The ability to transfer one element to another using nothing but electricity is profound. Given unlimited resources the human race will still have a limitation to the curve of our exponential growth. I would bet there is more than ample raw materials to support even the maximum theoretical population expansion based on a 120 year life span for the next 100,000 years in our local star systems alone.

The finite resources you are referring to are roughly 3000 times the amount available to us on earth. That's a single asteroid...... Yes they are limited but in the context of say, 7billion people to one earth, they are not limited in any practical way.

I am basing my conclusion that we will mine other non habitable planets for resources, as they are already located, nearby, and low risk. Even today as our technology improves our "war for oil" is coming to and end. Despite the attempts of the current administration to make these resources unavailable in preference of killing other cultures and continuing a needless "war", given time, war for resources will be a thing of barbaric civilizations past.

Think of what would be involved in transporting significant resources from one planet to the other, you would need to invest enough material to store, and transport it, that you would be out of resources to invade with by the time you built large enough containers.


War for "breathing room" as Hitler put it, will always be a possibility.

As I said, the only reason to invade other habitable planets, is for the habitat, resources become all but unlimited on the scale of the cosmos. That is to say, limited, only by your ability to obtain them. When we do move off of our single planet, human life will again become incredibly valuable. The vast numbers of our current populations will seem very small indeed on that scale, people will once again come together, they will be forced to to survive.
edit on 2-7-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by starwarsisreal
 


No.

While our history is full of war, it is also wars fought for one reason...control of resources. With interstellar travel, resources are nearly unlimited. So, why fight, when it is there for the taking....??? (somewhere)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 

Your objections to some of the reasons given in this thread for attacking any extraterrestrial civilisation we may find are quite correct. Consider, however, the following:
  1. If interstellar travel ever becomes possible it will not change human nature, but it will certainly revolutionise human culture. We will be faced with entirely new opportunities and problems. We will also acquire new aspirations, fears, values and priorities.

  2. These opportunities, problems, hopes, fears, values and priorities will be those of a starfaring culture.

  3. We will share them, therefore, with other starfaring cultures. This will lead, inevitably, to conflicts of interest, and thus real, physical conflict becomes not just possible, but almost inevitable.

It is far too early for us to say with confidence what the specific issues will be, but it is more reasonable to suppose there will be conflict than fondly to expect there will not be.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   
The answer to your question is yes but it would have to implement itself incrementally to be successful. It would have to look more like a religion in order to brainwash everyone into submission.
edit on 2-7-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   


It is far too early for us to say with confidence what the specific issues will be, but it is more reasonable to suppose there will be conflict than fondly to expect there will not be.


Yes, I completely agree. I was not implying that I think that interstellar travel will make humans all lovey dovey to each other and never fight again. In each of my posts I do state that conflict of some kind will be inevitable. I simply do not agree with the premise of a resource based conflict in the way that we have them now. There are clear logical reasons why this is so that this thread seemed to be missing.

In fact the original comment of "bringing democracy" I found very interesting and was expecting something more along the lines of ideal based conflicts. When I found most of it based on resources and the ideas of moving planet sized amounts of material from one location to the other I was somewhat disappointed.

In the future, we will more often, move to the resources, not move the resources to us.

Personally, I do not feel that human nature is inherently destructive, I feel that the state of our current relationships with each other as people, is largely dominated by a lack of resources or the ability to access them. This is including things like jobs, mates, etc not just the physical resources themselves. That is my personal opinion however and it certainly open to interpretation.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 


In fact the original comment of "bringing democracy" I found very interesting and was expecting something more along the lines of ideal based conflicts.

We are diploid organisms with individual autonomy and sentience, living in elaborately structured hierarchical societies in which a delicate balance is maintained between the interests of the individual and the group. All our ideals are rooted in these biological realities. It is improbable that aliens could have the same biology as ourselves, so our ideals will most likely be inapplicable to them.

What if they turn out to be haploid and parthenogenetic, so that all members of their community are clones? What if individual members of their society are genetically bound to their social roles, like workers, drones and queens in an ant colony or termitary? What if their consciousness was collective – individuals being almost entirely without it, but capable of joining together temporarily to become intelligent and conscious? Democracy would be meaningless to such beings.


I do not feel that human nature is inherently destructive.

On the contrary, it is inherently constructive; not for nothing have we earned the tag Homo faber.


I feel that the state of our current relationships with each other as people, is largely dominated by a lack of resources or the ability to access them.

Such is the case for all living things. I fear it will always be, for eminently Malthusian reasons.

edit on 3/7/13 by Astyanax because: of Malthusian seasons.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by H34T533K3R

Originally posted by tallcool1

Originally posted by freedomSlave
It is the religious aspect i think might be a little funny to watch


These kinds of comments always somewhat baffle me. I really don't understand why absolute proof of aliens would affect the religious at all...if that's what you were meaning.
I am a Christian myself. Granted, I'm not one of those "Christians" that are all bound by religious dogma and people burning in hell nonsense - but I am an "unorthodox" Christian nonetheless and I do believe that there are likely aliens out there somewhere. I don't think any have ever been to Earth, but that's a different thread.

Why is it you believe that proof of aliens would affect the religious at all? How do aliens landing on Earth negate the belief in God or (name your diety)? Just curious...and if that's not what you meant, then I apologize.



im not religious first of all but doesn't the bible say god is the supreme being? aliens would basically disprove what the bible attempts to teach. what if the aliens have their own "religion" and force their religion upon us? similar to how Christianity was forced onto other races non native to it. It might not have a direct impact right away on the current belivers, but down the line as your children are growing up into the new post alien world that was not available to their parents, they would likely take in the current aspect of religious teachings in place, and over time, Christianity and pretty much all current religions as we know it would change or cease to exist.


First off - sorry it took so long to respond. Sometimes I just forget to look back at my posts and see if anyone replied to them.


Anyhoo - like I said originally, I am a pretty "unorthodox" Christian. I do not believe in a lot of the religious dogma such as hell and other deliberate misinterpretations of the original languages that the Bible was written in. God, to me, isn't this petty, angry bearded white guy in the clouds who rains death down upon the puny humans who are disobedient.
I believe that He/She is more of a creator type of being without physical form that maybe we are all a part of and perhaps after death we all rejoin Him/Her in some way...at least that's my current belief. I also see the Bible as more of a "history" book of sorts. I think that the ancient Jews just attributed everything to God. If they lost a war or crops failed or there was a deadly earthquake, they believed God was angry. And conversely, if they conquered an enemy or had abundant crops or some other "good" thing happened to them, they believed God was pleased...but I don't really mean to derail this thread.

I believe that there was some sort of "creative force" that created the entire universe and everything in it. Many of us call this "creative force" God. I believe that this "creator" God does have a conscience or is sentient or however you want to word it and it would not affect my beliefs in any way whatsoever if aliens landed on Earth. It also wouldn't matter to me if they had their own religion and tried to force it upon us - I would still have my own beliefs. I still would not categorize my beliefs as a "religion" either, because religions have rules, laws, power structure, etc. Religion is a tool used by greedy, power hungry people to control the religious who will not question what they are told to believe (like democrats and republicans actually). I feel that if you can't question why you believe something because you'll be sent to "hell" or something - then you're just a non-thinking sheep in one of the many different "herds" of religious sheep on the planet.

As for putting the words and deeds of mankind upon God, I think that Charles Dickens' Ghost of Christmas Present said it best in "A Christmas Carol":

"There are some upon this earth of yours," returned the Spirit, "who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us."

So I would say as well - all of the religious wars, laws, judgements, catechisms, intolerance, bigotry, anger, hatred, punishment, torture, and general ass-ishness carried out in God's name really should be put on the one doing it, not on God. There is a HUGE difference in what the church wants and what God wants.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by starwarsisreal
 

Military invasions can be stopped.
The Tesla dome is the solution but seemingly the closest to the project
was ended in Germany 1945. The project was rejected by the US and
Navy in various forms until 1940 when proposed again. The dome can
not be penetrated by weapons due to premature detonation of weapons
and general ripping apart of any intrusion.
edit on 7/22/2013 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)



top topics
 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join