This has probably been asked a thousand times...

Message boards : SETI@home Science : This has probably been asked a thousand times...
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2

AuthorMessage
Profile PwNz0R

Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 08
Posts: 28
Credit: 1,044,619
RAC: 0
Norway
Message 1463190 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 17:59:03 UTC

So man never thought anyone lesser than himself? Enslavement isn't an example of treating people lesser, and thus a form of hate?


When fellow africans sold other africans into slavery they did it for profit, not for "hate" as a currency they could somehow barter with. When the eruopeans bought slaves they did so not just out of hatred of the africans, but because they wanted free labor. In each case PROFIT AND GAIN is motivation. Actually, in every other situation the reasoning is the same. No nation has ever acted without the idea of some kind of gain, and getting feelings in the whole debate is just showmanship and derailing the conversation.


And terrorism isn't about teaching hatred for a different way of life? Wow. What kind of people do I involve myself with in trying to have decent discussions? Simply wow.


Well, almost every act of terrorism known to man has been for either military or political goals, with benefits like land (Israeli terrorists bombing the british), influence (islamic terrorists in the middle east fighting for "sharia state") political change (weather underground, german communist groups) or any number of other TANGIBLE GAINS. Never in modern history has anyone attacked anyone on a large scale for hate alone, or for love, or for any other feeling or otherwise naive sentiment.
Just like the hatred for fellow man was a byproduct of slavery in the form of discrimination against africans, so is whatever nonsense rhetoric of any terrorist a cover-up for real goals and real gains.

So on the basis that no matter the reasoning every aggressive party ever to attack anyone is always after tangible gains, an nobody ever did anything "just because". And it is extremely unlikely that a species cpable of inner or intergalactic space travel is so childishly ignorant. It would be like saying that Hyenas can develop space travel while staying the same 4-legged flesh eating savages that attack anyone who is weak.
ID: 1463190 · Report as offensive
Michael Watson

Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 1344
Credit: 2,098,506
RAC: 5
Message 1463191 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 17:59:15 UTC
Last modified: 11 Jan 2014, 18:01:49 UTC

There is no real certainty about the sort of extraterrestrial cultures we may encounter. They could be aggressively predatory, benevolently friendly, or somewhere in between. A couple of points may be worth considering.
1.) A highly aggressive culture, given to endless conflicts, increases the chances of its own destruction. The odds seem to favor a scenario in which it will eventually encounter a culture that can defeat it, or one in which both it and its adversary are destroyed.
2.) There has been time for aggressive cultures to mature and spread throughout the galaxy, even if they must do so at sub-light speeds. We find no evidence of an occupying force on our planet. We seem to have not been interfered with for a very long span of time.
ID: 1463191 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1463202 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 18:15:32 UTC - in response to Message 1463190.  
Last modified: 11 Jan 2014, 18:38:15 UTC

So man never thought anyone lesser than himself? Enslavement isn't an example of treating people lesser, and thus a form of hate?


When fellow africans sold other africans into slavery they did it for profit, not for "hate" as a currency they could somehow barter with. When the eruopeans bought slaves they did so not just out of hatred of the africans, but because they wanted free labor. In each case PROFIT AND GAIN is motivation. Actually, in every other situation the reasoning is the same. No nation has ever acted without the idea of some kind of gain, and getting feelings in the whole debate is just showmanship and derailing the conversation.


The fact that one human being can somehow "sell" another indicates they believed the ones they were selling were lesser, and thus out of prejudice and hate. They simply found a way to turn their prejudice and hate into profit, because that's what those types do.


And terrorism isn't about teaching hatred for a different way of life? Wow. What kind of people do I involve myself with in trying to have decent discussions? Simply wow.


Well, almost every act of terrorism known to man has been for either military or political goals, with benefits like land (Israeli terrorists bombing the british), influence (islamic terrorists in the middle east fighting for "sharia state") political change (weather underground, german communist groups) or any number of other TANGIBLE GAINS. Never in modern history has anyone attacked anyone on a large scale for hate alone, or for love, or for any other feeling or otherwise naive sentiment.


That's just plain incorrect. Every act of terrorism is because one group thinks their way of life is the correct way to live, and terrorists are willing to go so far as to remove the other off the face of the planet. Their hatred for other ways of life which they deem "evil" is what has influenced their political views, and have motivated their political gains. In short, their TANGIBLE GAINS have been motivated by fear and hate.

Just like the hatred for fellow man was a byproduct of slavery in the form of discrimination against africans, so is whatever nonsense rhetoric of any terrorist a cover-up for real goals and real gains.


No, you have that twisted up wrong. Hatred was not a byproduct of slavery, rather slavery was a byproduct of hate.

So on the basis that no matter the reasoning every aggressive party ever to attack anyone is always after tangible gains, an nobody ever did anything "just because".


I never claimed people are aggressive "just because", which is an ad reduction absurdum argument of my position. I claimed that the traits that drive hatred, fear, and prejudice are likely not unique to our human race. I have also argued that tangible gains might be to utilize our species for cheap labor. After all, we are excellent tool builders. There could be a plethora of other reasons to enslave or destroy us, including those not even I could fathom.

And it is extremely unlikely that a species cpable of inner or intergalactic space travel is so childishly ignorant. It would be like saying that Hyenas can develop space travel while staying the same 4-legged flesh eating savages that attack anyone who is weak.


Why is it extremely unlikely? Why do you believe that becoming advanced means you shed all the negative traits a species could possibly have?
ID: 1463202 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1463215 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 18:28:34 UTC - in response to Message 1463191.  

There is no real certainty about the sort of extraterrestrial cultures we may encounter. They could be aggressively predatory, benevolently friendly, or somewhere in between.


Sounds like a sensible position to me.

A couple of points may be worth considering.
1.) A highly aggressive culture, given to endless conflicts, increases the chances of its own destruction. The odds seem to favor a scenario in which it will eventually encounter a culture that can defeat it, or one in which both it and its adversary are destroyed.


Agreed. Imagine the probability of a dominate, aggressive culture in which it has destroyed their adversaries and have become the defacto culture for their entire race. It is just as possible and likely that they would continue their aggressiveness in their space-faring conquests as well.

2.) There has been time for aggressive cultures to mature and spread throughout the galaxy, even if they must do so at sub-light speeds. We find no evidence of an occupying force on our planet. We seem to have not been interfered with for a very long span of time.


Or interfered with at all. ;-) But yes, there has been plenty of time for an aggressive culture to spread, however, that doesn't mean that haven't spread to our portion of the Universe at all. The possibility for an aggressive culture should not mean that if there were any, they'd somehow conquer the entire galaxy by now.
ID: 1463215 · Report as offensive
Profile PwNz0R

Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 08
Posts: 28
Credit: 1,044,619
RAC: 0
Norway
Message 1463216 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 18:35:20 UTC

You disagree with me on motivation for inhumane acts... I think I will not discuss that any further because you simply can not connect profit to whatever means that are used, although profit is the ONLY motivation that has ever led to anything (good or bad). That's fine.
But please explain this:
If a species possesses technology well beyond anything we have, and thus can create whatever it wants more effectively using that technology - what can it gain by attacking us or taking something from us?
Please give actual good examples. And no we are NOT good ad making "tools" given that we can not travel across the galaxy, if the hypothetical attacker can. In fact we can not even break our dependance on fossil fuels... so what exactly do we have that is so attractive that we should be enslaved/destroyed?
ID: 1463216 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1463219 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 19:06:52 UTC - in response to Message 1463216.  
Last modified: 11 Jan 2014, 19:14:21 UTC

You disagree with me on motivation for inhumane acts... I think I will not discuss that any further because you simply can not connect profit to whatever means that are used, although profit is the ONLY motivation that has ever led to anything (good or bad). That's fine.


Incorrect. I can connect profit to inhumane acts. It would seem that you have simply stopped at the profit motive, and thus stopped asking 'why' once you arrived at a conclusion that satiates your curiosity. I have continued past the profit motivation (which is NOT the ONLY motivation that has ever led to anything good or bad), and asked what is in the mindset of these profiteering individuals that would allow them to do the things they do simply for money. There's another 'why' beyond profit that you seem to have not considered, or easily dismissed merely because it doesn't make sense to you.

But please explain this:
If a species possesses technology well beyond anything we have, and thus can create whatever it wants more effectively using that technology - what can it gain by attacking us or taking something from us?
Please give actual good examples.


Ummm... I already answered that. Enslavement to have free/cheap labor for the things their technology isn't able to create, or to suit an individual preference (after all, that is a motive even you should agree with being that it involves profit). Enslavement because they view our existence lesser to their own, and thus do not see it as inhumane to enslave us.

Destruction because they could possibly view our way of life as a 'sin' to whatever god(s) they may believe in. Destruction because they may view us more like a virus or disease because of the way went tend to spread and consume. Destruction because they think our entire existence is offensive.

The bottom line is that simply guessing at the motivations of a species we've never met can be an exercise in futility. The only thing I'm arguing for is equal probabilities in both a malevolent or benevolent species making contact with us. I do not share your evangelical views that with technological advancement comes only benevolence. That you do not find any of these examples 'good' is merely a reflection of your personal bias for your belief that technology brings only benevolence. I believe they are good examples, as I'm sure others would, even if you and those that think like you do not. Regardless of our individual opinions, both sides should be considered as it will effect us all if contact were made. To easily waive off or dismiss any other possibility simply because you cannot see it means I am glad I have a voice of dissention.

And no we are NOT good ad making "tools" given that we can not travel across the galaxy, if the hypothetical attacker can. In fact we can not even break our dependance on fossil fuels... so what exactly do we have that is so attractive that we should be enslaved/destroyed?


So the fact that we cannot do something today like travel across the galaxy means we are not good tool makers? We're an incredibly youthful species that is merely in our infancy of the Universe, and you claim that because we have not figured out intergalactic travel by now, we are not very good at building tools. I can only hope you do not expect a newborn baby to be able to figure out quantum mechanics within their first few seconds of life too, because that is exactly what you're expecting of our race with your position.
ID: 1463219 · Report as offensive
Michael Watson

Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 1344
Credit: 2,098,506
RAC: 5
Message 1463220 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 19:13:33 UTC - in response to Message 1463215.  
Last modified: 11 Jan 2014, 19:15:21 UTC

There is no real certainty about the sort of extraterrestrial cultures we may encounter. They could be aggressively predatory, benevolently friendly, or somewhere in between.


Sounds like a sensible position to me.

A couple of points may be worth considering.
1.) A highly aggressive culture, given to endless conflicts, increases the chances of its own destruction. The odds seem to favor a scenario in which it will eventually encounter a culture that can defeat it, or one in which both it and its adversary are destroyed.


Agreed. Imagine the probability of a dominate, aggressive culture in which it has destroyed their adversaries and have become the defacto culture for their entire race. It is just as possible and likely that they would continue their aggressiveness in their space-faring conquests as well.

2.) There has been time for aggressive cultures to mature and spread throughout the galaxy, even if they must do so at sub-light speeds. We find no evidence of an occupying force on our planet. We seem to have not been interfered with for a very long span of time.


Or interfered with at all. ;-) But yes, there has been plenty of time for an aggressive culture to spread, however, that doesn't mean that haven't spread to our portion of the Universe at all. The possibility for an aggressive culture should not mean that if there were any, they'd somehow conquer the entire galaxy by now.
An aggressive culture that has dominated the planet on which it originated is still in the very same, perilous position it was before. As it expands into other solar systems it will likely encounter, eventually, an adversary that can defeat it.

It is unlikely that they would encounter us before being destroyed, unless they originated quite nearby, galactically speaking. If they were nearby to begin with, it seems natural to expect that we would have encountered them long before now.
There are a great many stars in our galaxy that are billions of years older than ours. Even if aggressive ETs expanded at very modest sub-light speeds, they could have completely filled the galaxy in less than a million years. They have had several thousand times longer than necessary to do so.
The fact that we have no evidence of such a race at Earth should probably tell us something.
ID: 1463220 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1463223 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 19:21:54 UTC - in response to Message 1463220.  

An aggressive culture that has dominated the planet on which it originated is still in the very same, perilous position it was before. As it expands into other solar systems it will likely encounter, eventually, an adversary that can defeat it.


Agreed... and if it has not encountered that other adversary by the time it meets us?

It is unlikely that they would encounter us before being destroyed, unless they originated quite nearby, galactically speaking. If they were nearby to begin with, it seems natural to expect that we would have encountered them long before now.


Not necessarily so. It would certainly be contingent upon exactly how 'advanced' we are talking here, and even more contingent upon the number of other 'advanced' civilizations currently out there. It is also not so unlikely that through their conquest and domination that they could become even more powerful, thus the likelihood of them coming across such an advanced adversary that could defeat them become even more slim.

There are a great many stars in our galaxy that are billions of years older than ours. Even if aggressive ETs expanded at very modest sub-light speeds, they could have completely filled the galaxy in less than a million years. They have had several thousand times longer than necessary to do so.
The fact that we have no evidence of such a race at Earth should probably tell us something.


You conclusion still depends on exactly how advanced we're talking about. I do not agree that even at modes sub-light speeds that they would be here by now given a relatively youthful state of space exploration, or even given a lack of reason to come to our portion of the Universe unless we start shouting "hey, we're over here!"
ID: 1463223 · Report as offensive
Profile PwNz0R

Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 08
Posts: 28
Credit: 1,044,619
RAC: 0
Norway
Message 1463240 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 20:40:51 UTC

Incorrect. I can connect profit to inhumane acts. It would seem that you have simply stopped at the profit motive, and thus stopped asking 'why' once you arrived at a conclusion that satiates your curiosity


No, you are not undertstanding anything I said and just repating yourself.
Every, absolutely every single war or major conflict had GAIN as motivation and whatever ideological dogma as the popular REASONING. The first can exist without the latter just fine, the latter all by itself is absolutely useless.
Like in the example of slaves or natives the motivation was land, cheap labor, whatever othe resources and the "inferiority" was the reasoning and popular PR campaign. Because even before we (the western world) was fully aware of for example Eskimos or Koreans, but never had any specific attitude towards them until it was suitable to have one - like saying Native Americans are "inferior" and that their land should be taken. Thus the hate and the discrimination serves as an excuse but not as the reason. So following this logic we must have something tangible of value in order to be targeted.
And like I said so many times already the capability of such extensive space travel by its very fact voids (not all!) but the vast majority of reasons why anyone should want anything from us, because like you said we are at our "yourthful state" and in many areas just fail complteley (like government).
Making us slaves would be like making slaves of cats or flies, we would not even grasp the task we would be given. So like I said please point out what actual things of value other than the biodiversity we have is on this planet that would be such a valid reason why we should be attacked.

And stuff like "religious reasons" I am throwing right out the window because scientific advance is in direct contradiction to religion, so to expect that we have the Galactic Wahhabist Jihad arriving in our solar system is just out of the question. We must not project every single human failure as some kind of universal trait.
ID: 1463240 · Report as offensive
Profile PwNz0R

Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 08
Posts: 28
Credit: 1,044,619
RAC: 0
Norway
Message 1463242 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 20:47:19 UTC

Since we can probably keep discussing this forever and never reach any kind of agreement let's go back to the topic. Your position on SETI is clear - to be cautious.

Please explain to me then:
1) How do you propose we go forth? Keep listening?
2) If we find ET before it finds us. What do we do? Contact them? As a pre-requitise let's say we ONLY intercept some random message that does not give us any clues of their nature other than a greeting only a rough explenation where they are.
3) If we are unsure of their nature or simply do not understand them, what do we do then? Do we attempt to contact, do we attempt to spy on them? Do we send a CIA operative discuised in a rubber "little green man" suit?
ID: 1463242 · Report as offensive
Michael Watson

Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 1344
Credit: 2,098,506
RAC: 5
Message 1463243 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 20:49:20 UTC - in response to Message 1463223.  

An aggressive culture that has dominated the planet on which it originated is still in the very same, perilous position it was before. As it expands into other solar systems it will likely encounter, eventually, an adversary that can defeat it.


Agreed... and if it has not encountered that other adversary by the time it meets us?

It is unlikely that they would encounter us before being destroyed, unless they originated quite nearby, galactically speaking. If they were nearby to begin with, it seems natural to expect that we would have encountered them long before now.


Not necessarily so. It would certainly be contingent upon exactly how 'advanced' we are talking here, and even more contingent upon the number of other 'advanced' civilizations currently out there. It is also not so unlikely that through their conquest and domination that they could become even more powerful, thus the likelihood of them coming across such an advanced adversary that could defeat them become even more slim.

There are a great many stars in our galaxy that are billions of years older than ours. Even if aggressive ETs expanded at very modest sub-light speeds, they could have completely filled the galaxy in less than a million years. They have had several thousand times longer than necessary to do so.
The fact that we have no evidence of such a race at Earth should probably tell us something.


You conclusion still depends on exactly how advanced we're talking about. I do not agree that even at modes sub-light speeds that they would be here by now given a relatively youthful state of space exploration, or even given a lack of reason to come to our portion of the Universe unless we start shouting "hey, we're over here!"
ID: 1463243 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 21287
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 1463244 - Posted: 11 Jan 2014, 20:53:57 UTC

Locking for a cool down.

When re-opened please return to the topic and not argue about how aggressive an alien contact may be.
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 1463244 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2

Message boards : SETI@home Science : This has probably been asked a thousand times...


 
©2023 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.