Aliens Myths: 5 Big Misconceptions About Extraterrestrial Life

Story From: Huffington Post
Author: Natalie Wolchover
Published: 06/14/2012

Aliens Myths: 5 Big Misconceptions About Extraterrestrial Life


Yes I used xuenchen's thread style because I liked it, it's good to have the dates and author clearly listed. Anyway, I found this article quite interesting because it claims to be debunking several big misconceptions about extraterrestrial life, yet at the same time it's promoting several mainstream misconceptions using very deceptive logic. Let me explain.

1. They won't come in peace

The renowned physicist Stephen Hawking once famously warned that humanity's efforts to radio communicate with extraterrestrials could be endangering us. If the aliens that detect our signals are technologically capable of coming here — proof that they are far more advanced than we — "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," Hawking said.

The very first thing they do is promote one of the biggest misconceptions EVER about aliens. The truth is most people believe that they wont come in peace. In reality most people are scared that aliens will arrive on our planet because Hollywood has conditioned them to believe it's going to be a very negative event and they will try to kill all of us to steal our planet or resources, despite the fact the Universe is absolutely overflowing with the resources found on Earth, which would be easily accessible to any species capable of travelling to Earth from another star system. In fact the article goes on to claim "Aggression evolved as a trait among Earthlings because it helps us obtain and protect resources.", and so they claim aliens would also have similar traits even if they evolved on a totally different planet.

What they fail to take into account however, is the nature of sentient consciousness. Do you think Humans would attempt to destroy an entire species for some resources? A rare few of us may consider it, but the truth is we would never put it into action because most of us can see how despicable that would be. For any alien species capable of reaching Earth, they would have to be vastly more advanced than us and most likely much wiser. All wise beings know that war and destruction is never the best way to solve a problem, because the losses are often greater than anything gained from the conflict. It is also highly likely they were able to achieve such a high level of technological development because they learned to work together as one species instead of fighting and killing each other, and destroying their planet in the process.

2. They didn't put us here

"I get emails every week saying that Homo sapiens are the result of alien intervention," Shostak said. "I'm not sure why aliens would be interested in producing us. I think people like to think we're special. But isn't that what got Galileo and Copernicus into trouble — questioning how special we were? But if we're just another duck in the road, it's not very exciting."

This claim is perhaps just as contradictory as the first. Most people believe aliens haven't visited Earth or else we would know about. It's only a fringe group of alien researchers and historians who actually believe in the Ancient Alien Hypothesis. Not to mention their whole counter-argument here is based on the idea that "we aren't special"... how completely idiotic is this author. The Ancient Alien Hypothesis is simply a variant of the Panspermia Hypothesis, there is nothing "special" about it unless you want to believe that aliens are some type of Gods or Angels or Demons, which only a fool would believe. The concept that our early ancestors were placed on this planet by humanoid aliens just like us is not some type of magical religious hypothesis, it's actually a way to rationalize the origins of religion.

And the other 3 points aren't really so stupid, they are rational legitimate points that I can't really argue with. Point 3 claims that they would be immune to Earth's bacteria because they wouldn't have DNA the same as Earth life and the bacteria wouldn't be able to international with their biologically, which is presumably true... unless we are talking about humanoid aliens who are some how related to us. The 4th point claims "they won't eat us", which is probably the most truthful point, it's unlikely any species would be reliant on interplanetary food sources to sustain their species. The 5th and last point, "they won't mate with us", is not so clear imo. They may use some type of advanced genetic manipulations to cross-breed our species, and once again, if they are a humanoid species with genetic relations to our species they very well may be able to mate with us.

I thought for sure #1 would be: They exist

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 AquarianHerald


edit: I have removed this post because it was off topic. I will include this post in the other thread if I make it.

reply to post by DeadSnow


That could be a false dichotomy.

Things could get complicated. It would be immoral to intervene and against space convention on early civilizations. Letting a specious develop through their own wars and politics etc, is normal.

Would be great if the did intervene though. Religion would be relegated to fiction, and they could tell us the real history of man.

reply to post by DeadSnow

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.

That's a legitimate statement and I think there are legitimate explanations to that. I don't think there is necessarily anything forcing them to "care" about us. What if there are hundreds or thousands of species in our galaxy as the Drake Equation suggests? Why would they have a responsibility to help any species having trouble? And don't you think it would be much more rational to let us solve our own problems on our own in our own time instead of having all the solutions handed to us on a golden platter? What would we really learn if they did they? NOTHING... we would learn nothing except that we can act however we want and it wont ever matter because the big powerful guys will always come swooping in to solve everything. That is just lazy and ridiculous, if we ever want to evolve as a species we need to go through the hard tedious process of fixing our own mistakes and learning from them... that's the only way.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Do you think Humans would attempt to destroy an entire species for some resources?

No, but...

Do you think Humans would... destroy an entire species for some resources?

Yes, most certainly. I don't think it, I know it. Because we can and we have – repeatedly.

The truth is we would never put it into action because most of us can see how despicable that would be.

Yet it has happened, not once or twice, but many times over. Extinctions, genocides, massacres... the history of humankind is rife with such atrocities.

And aliens, if they are sentient, will be no different from us. How could they be? Natural selection and competition for resources would have shaped their nature just as it has shaped ours.

It is also highly likely they were able to achieve such a high level of technological development because they learned to work together as one species instead of fighting and killing each other, and destroying their planet in the process.

It is not cooperation but competition that drives scientific and technological advance.

It's only a fringe group of alien researchers and historians who actually believe in the Ancient Alien Hypothesis.

Yet every week – no, every day – we get several posts on ATS advancing or supporting the AAH. Must be a big fringe.

The Ancient Alien Hypothesis is simply a variant of the Panspermia Hypothesis.

You are mistaken. The first is a great science-fiction idea whose finest expression was in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. The second suggests that life may have evolved from organic molecules that arrived on Earth from outer space and is originally attributed to Hoyle and Wickramasinghe.

I don't think there is necessarily anything forcing them to "care" about us.

Which is why they may not think twice before exterminating us.

reply to post by Astyanax

Do you think Humans would... destroy an entire species for some resources?

Yes, most certainly. I don't think it, I know it. Because we can and we have – repeatedly.

Yes, after re-reading what I wrote I knew someone would make that point. However, I was clearly talking about a sentient species on another planet. We would not invade another planet which was home to another self-aware species and destroy them and steal all their resource, it just wont happen, people would protest such actions stronger than they have ever protested anything before. I'm sure some large corporations and corrupt politicians would like to see it happen, but there would be FAR too much resistance from the masses of our species. Inadvertently destroying species on our own planet, species which are presumed to be non-sentient, is not the same as invading the home planet of another sentient species for completely immoral and greedy reasons.

It's only a fringe group of alien researchers and historians who actually believe in the Ancient Alien Hypothesis.

Yet every week – no, every day – we get several posts on ATS advancing or supporting the AAH. Must be a big fringe.

If you hadn't noticed ATS is a fringe conspiracy website where we talk about and promote alternative theories which counter the mainstream theories.

The Ancient Alien Hypothesis is simply a variant of the Panspermia Hypothesis.

You are mistaken.

No I don't think so... both theories suggest life was "planted" or "seeded" on Earth from an external source so I don't think it's unfair to say one is a variant of the other.

TextWhat they fail to take into account however, is the nature of sentient consciousness. Do you think Humans would attempt to destroy an entire species for some resources? A rare few of us may consider it, but the truth is we would never put it into action because most of us can see how despicable that would be. For any alien species capable of reaching Earth, they would have to be vastly more advanced than us and most likely much wiser. All wise beings know that war and destruction is never the best way to solve a problem, because the losses are often greater than anything gained from the conflict. It is also highly likely they were able to achieve such a high level of technological development because they learned to work together as one species instead of fighting and killing each other, and destroying their planet in the process.

You're quite incorrect, we have destroyed species for the resources they sit upon, the Amazon is a classic example, we are wiping out dozens of species indigent to that area alone while destroying the rainforests there.
I'm far from a 'save the rainforest' person, but it IS happening

reply to post by HomerinNC


Yes I just addressed that point in my last post. I knew people would pick up on that, I should have made myself clearer.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Astyanax

 

The Ancient Alien Hypothesis is simply a variant of the Panspermia Hypothesis.

You are mistaken.

No I don't think so... both theories suggest life was "planted" or "seeded" on Earth from an external source so I don't think it's unfair to say one is a variant of the other.

edit on 18/6/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

Yes. I agree. The only "leap of faith" involved in the "ancient aliens" hypothesis is the assumption that civilizations can technologically develop to the point where they are capable of "inter-stellar" travel. But if "intelligent life" can travel between stars, it certainly is possible that when they get there, they might tinker with the existing DNA of the native life - might. Certainly, that is not "crazy sci-fi" since our scientists have created thousands of genetic mutations through bio-engineering.

Plus I also think that panspermia is now seen as a very mainstream theory. DNA, the basic building block of life, may well be spread throughout much of the cosmos.

reply to post by igor_ats


Have you ever thought that perhaps they were once referred to as Gods & religion will exist with or without them? Or they could make us mine for 'their' gold. Either way we lose, They don't care....

I wonder what are the chances that our planet would even be habitable for them. Countless terrestrial species which thrived on the ancient Earth could not survive now because of the temperature and atmospheric composition

These proposed grey aliens for example appear to originate from a planet with an opaque atmosphere, perhaps due to extensive volcanic activity, hence the pale skin and large eyes

I guess if they colonised Earth then shares in sun tan lotion would sky-rocket

Interesting reading. I would like to add another misconception or myth. Do they really only communicate telepathically ?. I've seen a few argument s about this topic. I don't know or have proof, but couldn't it be possible that some species could actually verbalize words even if in their language.

Originally posted by kingofmd
I thought for sure #1 would be: They exist

Aha! You caught that! Sorta like the US government quit denying UFOs a few decades ago and switched to cleverly saying that the reported phenomena are not a threat to "national security."

Today, the myth is reversed. Claiming that ETs don't exist or that UFOs are not visiting aliens is a myth not based on any single fact. There is no facts to prove those two egoistic-based viewpoints. In fact, you ;must ignore literally tons of evidence to hold that view today. Only scientific dogma holds such positions today aided and abetted by governments.

Such viewpoints in themselves are ancient myths that humans have created to protect their precious egos (and religions) from a simple truth of the Universe and elevate themselves to be the supreme animal.

In regard to the current if not half a century old myth that UFOs don't exist, we can quote and old addage about attempts to fool the masses in spite of the obvious. And that is: "The emperor has no clothes."

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Story From: Huffington Post
Author: Natalie Wolchover
Published: 06/14/2012

Aliens Myths: 5 Big Misconceptions About Extraterrestrial Life

 

Yes I used xuenchen's thread style because I liked it, it's good to have the dates and author clearly listed. Anyway, I found this article quite interesting because it claims to be debunking several big misconceptions about extraterrestrial life, yet at the same time it's promoting several mainstream misconceptions using very deceptive logic. Let me explain.

1. They won't come in peace

The renowned physicist Stephen Hawking once famously warned that humanity's efforts to radio communicate with extraterrestrials could be endangering us. If the aliens that detect our signals are technologically capable of coming here — proof that they are far more advanced than we — "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," Hawking said.

The very first thing they do is promote one of the biggest misconceptions EVER about aliens. The truth is most people believe that they wont come in peace. In reality most people are scared that aliens will arrive on our planet because Hollywood has conditioned them to believe it's going to be a very negative event and they will try to kill all of us to steal our planet or resources, despite the fact the Universe is absolutely overflowing with the resources found on Earth, which would be easily accessible to any species capable of traveling to Earth from another star system. In fact the article goes on to claim "Aggression evolved as a trait among Earthlings because it helps us obtain and protect resources.", and so they claim aliens would also have similar traits even if they evolved on a totally different planet.

What they fail to take into account however, is the nature of sentient consciousness. Do you think Humans would attempt to destroy an entire species for some resources? A rare few of us may consider it, but the truth is we would never put it into action because most of us can see how despicable that would be. For any alien species capable of reaching Earth, they would have to be vastly more advanced than us and most likely much wiser. All wise beings know that war and destruction is never the best way to solve a problem, because the losses are often greater than anything gained from the conflict. It is also highly likely they were able to achieve such a high level of technological development because they learned to work together as one species instead of fighting and killing each other, and destroying their planet in the process.

I think she's mistaken on the first point.Since when does Stephen Hawking's opinion as a scientist influenced by Hollywood? And if so, why isn't she?

And she is also mistaken to claim humans wouldn't wipe out a species for their resources because "very few" of us would tolerate it.Well guess what, it only takes one of those few to become a leader and decide to take such action.It happened in the past with spaniards for aztec gold or the US and native americans for their lands.

So it isn't as far fetched to assume they might just have the same flaw as we do in having leaders that shouldn't be there in the first place.

Who says that the aliens are all sent by an official source and that the rest of their planet gets to hear about their plans?
They could be a rouge group, up to no good. Pirates for example. Then nobody would care or tell them to stop killing us.
Furthermore I always think that if any species has managed to get as far as reaching other planets, they must have been the most successful within similar settings. Meaning that they have won all the wars, got all the scientists to work for them and so on. You don't get that far by being humble and peaceful. So what we would be dealing with is the biggest badas*es of the universe. Ghengis Khan in a spaceship so to say.

IF there are aliens out there, I would never be so naive and believe that they are good and friendly. The Inkas tried that with Cortez and got wiped out ruthlessly.

thank god finally someone has said it, i also highly doubt Stephen Hawking's view about interstellar manners for the following reasons.

1. whilst yes we as the human race still fight for what ever is worth having, we still have not progressed to a level 1 civilization, to properly manage the earths resources. as well as a one world government free from bias and corruption, I know that might be a stretch but as tech grows control grows and corruption gets harder to hide(just look at what hacking and portable flash drives have exposed) there's bound to be a wall were secrets just cant happen. (well anything that is worth knowing) and of course one set of laws that allows freedoms that don't impact on another. now the whole new world order can be a scary prospect but eventually it will happen in a way that all will be happy under(might take a couple attempts but it will get there, unless we destroy each other in the progress I dare say that's the most likely outcome due to the diversity of the human race)

2.

despite the fact the Universe is absolutely overflowing with the resources found on Earth, which would be easily accessible to any species capable of travelling to Earth from another star system.

and for argument sake there's something we have they want. chances are it is easier to trade for it and would be much more cost effective. now when advanced civilizations on earth traveled to other country it was found easy-er to trade advanced tech for whatever, compared to slaughtering the inhabitants. as an added bonus the inhabitants of the new found land would even stockpile desired goods for next return. kill em ya got to do the work yourself, i think that's were the Spanish messed up.
But that doesn't rule the out possibility
most likely what would happen in the event of hostile taking of resources from earth would be snatch and grab, basically were taking this whether you like it or not, there is nothing that can be done to stop us due to our over whelming tech... last thing we wanna do in an event like this is to provoke simply because we wouldn't have a clue what cards they have to play with

3 They need this planet as a stronghold for war... either we end up as slaves, possibly pampered, or were boned.
4 there is the possibility for a Geneva convention of a galactic proportion, tho detecting violations would be extremely hard, but who knows

5 given that chances are that there would be a one world government for an alien race to progress, and chances are that migrating populations would be in close quarters to the origin planet then chances are that the one world government would want to have control over all within its own race to maintain peace and order by all means necessary, now what about the ones that migrate further you might ask, well population would be of slower growth because further away from home chances are less migration, now if the further population was to develop non social behavior then the home government would find out about portray them as terrorist for the greater good


before you ask yer i know what i just said, funny how things seem to go round in circles

2. They didn't put us here

i do like to think that the first one celler's came here by freak accident but could be possible that they were put here, my personal god is what is depicted on Ben 10, that green sludge thing that has some sort of device that hovers above to give it form, my best guess it a quantum entangle comp anti grav pump, picture this a multi cell organism were it can divide its groups at will and its whole form can function as a brain, and has developed tech and decided to seed planets to guarantee existence(what good is a universe with no one to observe(even if your son looks nothing like you)
and as for AAT well i suppose it seems to answer allot of questions

and as for point 4 if push comes to shove, but id imagine that we'd be classed as an intelligent species and that kind of thing is wrong... i hope