Our Universal Territory

[EvilEggCracker]

When (if) Mankind garners the technology to travel the stars and has the military might to conquer them what, in moral terms, would we be entitled too? Would it be our right to conquer alien species (if they exist) and their planets for the benefit of our own race (resources/manual labour)? Or would we only take certain sectors (our solar system/galaxy etc.)?

And if we do meet alien races technology inferior to us - should we contact them (and possibly give them access to our technology)? And if we encounter a species that does not resemble us in any way, but displays some intelligence - would it be justifiable to use it as manual labour for the benefit of mankind?

[Lazere]

Would it be justifiable to conquer/enslave alien races? No. Will mankind try to justify it? Yes. It/when we do start colonizing planets and finding alien races, it will start the circle of history again. Another age of exploration will ensue and mankind will say that it's ok to kill/enslave these races because they are "inferior" (sound familiar?) It happened with many other human races in the past, why wouldn't it happen in the future? Is it justifiable? In my eyes, if we can communicate with an alien race enough to enslave it, then it is absolutely unjustifiable. But, if on the other hand, we find life on other planets, and none of them show a spark of intelligence, I believe it is justifiable to use them the same way use the animals on our planet.

[Prozerran]

Under our current societal model of capitalistic society, there is little, if any, chance that we will develop the technology that would make us capable of exploring the galaxy. When greed and ambition for power stops being rewarded by our culture, a lot of things will change. First, we won't have this struggle for dominance. We will (surprisingly enough) be better ready to approach other species with respect and curiosity. More than likely, it will take another model (that is, the model of a more advanced civilization) to make us able to explore the galaxy and claim our territory. It is more than likely that other species exist with technology and social order that is superior to our own. When we learn to accept that, the issues of this thread will be a rather moot point.

[Icarus]

Unless the species of alien is able to communicate clearly (Not that we would understand them) among themselves, and have evolved to the point that they have formed civilizations and developed technologies etc., they don't have any more moral authority than the animals here on earth. So if we find a martian squirrel, I don't care what happens to it, but if we find the protoss, we would obviously try to coexist peacefully.

I think it would be very interesting to see if upon finding an intelligent alien race, that all the human civilizations form some sort of coalition to represent the entire race.

why wouldn't it happen in the future?

Because the societies of the most powerful nations know it is wrong. If we blatantly enslave an intelligent alien force, there would be harsh social repercussions. Of course, there are forms of slavery that are more subtle...

[Gunmonk]

I dont really know... I would think that if we encounter an alien race what is to say they will not try to do the same? I would worry more about finding an alien species that is hostile more than enslaving it. When we do find other lifeforms, it will be interesting even if they are not sentient creatures. What will we do about the planets though... if they have taken other evolutionary paths, then it is definitely possible that we would find new elements. What then would we do with those rescources is a better question if you ask me.

[Lithium]

If we do encounter an alien race, then most likely scientists will probe them, news will go out and shockwaves of excitement will be sent throughout the earth. Good times come, fortune comes to both worlds. Then...the Zerg come...(or terrorists)

But that's just my little delusion I have going inside my brain. What I really think will happen is that most likely we will not be able to understand them. So we will either get our asses kicked, or kick their ass. It's only one of two.

[Lazere]

Because the societies of the most powerful nations know it is wrong. If we blatantly enslave an intelligent alien force, there would be harsh social repercussions. Of course, there are forms of slavery that are more subtle...

I don't believe there will be harsh social repercussions for the enslavers. The leaders of the most powerful leaders care more about dominance and gain than they do about their morals. Most importantly, most of these leaders are also Christian, meaning that they think that humans are God's children and any other form of life, intelligent or not, is, by nature, inferior. Given these, blatant slavery of intelligent aliens seems likely.

[Icarus]

I was speaking in the context of a global civilization. Ordinary people would hear this and most definitely demonstrate against it. This isn't medieval europe where an absolute ruler can do anything he wants without catering to the people's concerns. Republicanism, at the present time, is the most acceptable and predominant form of government in the world. With that in mind, leaders can't ignore the most fundamental right of all intelligent beings which is personal freedom.

Otherwise, they probably would not get voted in.

[Lazere]

Ok... I'll give you that. Our leaders can't ignore the will of the masses. My only thought is... Will the masses actually care about an intelligent alien race? Probably not. They will either be afraid of them or think of them as inferior. This being said, the leaders will be "forced" to think of them as inferior as well, thereby enslaving them without consequence...

[Darmago]

In all likelyhood, any alien race we meet is bound to be so amazingly different that we cannot hope to know enough of their culture before something bad happens. For one species to survive fist contact, I believe the best course of action would be extremely limited contact until coexistance is possible, without that war would probably tear one or the other(possibly both) apart.

For fun speculation on meeting an alien race, Read The Conqueror's Trilogy by Timothy Zahn, Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead, 2001, 2001, 2061, 3001, and possibly Sphere by Michael Crichton

[UnHoly-Assassin]

We cannot apply the definitions and justifications of property outside that of our social structure. There are celestial bodies out there that makes our Sun look like a mere pixel on a 17" screen, and even with our greed I highly doubt we will find the need for more land than that in the foreseeable future. In the event of a first encounter, I doubt we would be remotely stupid enough to raise a battle cry when we know nearly nothing about what's really out there. At best we would try to learn about the extraterrestrial beings before assessing if imperialism would be profitable. With our current social structure, we will certainly claim bodies, and we already have. What's the first thing we did when we went to the moon? Plant our flag. It's ours. The question is, what would be our response if our existence has been the claimed property of another race? If our planet is part of the territory of another civilization? If we are, unknowingly, "owned"?

[EvilEggCracker]

We cannot apply the definitions and justifications of property outside that of our social structure. There are celestial bodies out there that makes our Sun look like a mere pixel on a 17" screen, and even with our greed I highly doubt we will find the need for more land than that in the foreseeable future. In the event of a first encounter, I doubt we would be remotely stupid enough to raise a battle cry when we know nearly nothing about what's really out there. At best we would try to learn about the extraterrestrial beings before assessing if imperialism would be profitable. With our current social structure, we will certainly claim bodies, and we already have. What's the first thing we did when we went to the moon? Plant our flag. It's ours. The question is, what would be our response if our existence has been the claimed property of another race? If our planet is part of the territory of another civilization? If we are, unknowingly, "owned"?

Which is also extremely interesting - what if an Alien race claims our solar system as theirs? Do they have any more right to it than us?

[ScottieIWU]

Which is also extremely interesting - what if an Alien race claims our solar system as theirs? Do they have any more right to it than us?No because property is a social concept that, even if shared outside of our own sentient race, is not something that can be truly enforced due to the continued disputation of claims.

That said, let's assume that a sentient race was developed enough to come to our solar system and claim it as their own, and manages to communicate that claim to us so that we understand it. They'll probably kill us anyway, whether or not we agree with the dispute.

There is no real concept of territory, and the fact that humans have had wars over who "owns" what lands for thousands of years should illustrate that concept clearly. The general idea of cosmic exploration would probably be to explore and tread lightly wherever we went, so that we don't piss off some alien species that could demolish us.

This also assumes that there's anything out there worthy of humans staking a "claim."

[kongurous]

When (if) Mankind garners the technology to travel the stars and has the military might to conquer them what, in moral terms, would we be entitled too? Would it be our right to conquer alien species (if they exist) and their planets for the benefit of our own race (resources/manual labour)? Or would we only take certain sectors (our solar system/galaxy etc.)?

And if we do meet alien races technology inferior to us - should we contact them (and possibly give them access to our technology)? And if we encounter a species that does not resemble us in any way, but displays some intelligence - would it be justifiable to use it as manual labour for the benefit of mankind?

Moral terms are subjective to the beholder. One person may believe that humanity as a race is superior than any alien race, while another may not even care. If it were up to me (thank whatever deity you may or may not believe in it is not up to me), I would have the comparison made upon the basis of technology and understanding of the physical sciences. Comparing culture or physical bodies would be too open to bias. Any comparison made between two things that depend upon viewpoint are too open to bias, for that matter.

But I think it is time I scrambled to find a point to this post. Let us, like you said, assume we do have the technology to communicate with an alien species that is of similar or lower technological status than us. Nothing gives us the right to own another human, what makes an alien any different? If the species we encounter have true sentience, then we have no right to deprive them of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Unless they attack or provoke us first, then I believe we have every right to retaliate.

[Anoiktos]

I generally think that if we attempt to inhabit a planet on which natives exist, our reaction will be one of the following:

1. Religious hysteria because "those ones aren't in the bible", etc.
2. hey, exotic pets!
3. they're hostile, kill them quickly.
4. they're weak, therefore -> (see colonization of the americas)
5. they're strong, therefore -> unknown (depends on how humanlike these creatures are)
6. (most likely, in my opinion) We don't notice they exist, and either accidentally kill them or accidentally leave them alone.

Humans are remarkably hostile creatures who tend to follow irrational belief systems based on ignorance-fueled speculation. We're neither as pragmatic as felines or as family-oriented as canines. As such, I believe any peaceful contact with an alien species is likely to be short-lived and full of miscommunication until something goes wrong.

[Toucan]

If we ever do develop the ability to explore space and were to begin building a settlement on a planet in a system that another race considers there territory, our first contact with that race may be them blowing the settlement to kingdom come.

Think about how we would react to an unknown sentient race that just came along and began building an apparent base in a territory we considered ours?

We don't know what is out there, it may be very easy to tread on someones toes.

If we ever get there, there are so many reasons why peaceful relations will not be possible. And the fact is if we find ourselves competing with an alien race for the resources of particular star systems because of limitations of how far we can travel then the gloves will be off anyway.

[Hasharin]

Interhuman slavery and wars are one thing, but if we were to discover another entire RACE of other beings, no way would we have any justifiable purpose for harming them in any way, unless they were openly hostile to us. I agree with Stephen Hawkings, who said that any direct contact with aliens would be a disaster. for all we know, anotehr race could have different morals, or no morals at all, or could be Genocidal (XD), or could even be physically harmful to us, like exhaling cyanide gas or something.

[Lazere]

Why couldn't there by a justifiable purpose for harming them? Are you saying that there is a justifiable purpose in harming our own race? Survival of the fittest could easily be argued over this issue if we were to ever contact an alien race... "Humans are superior... It's them or us. We will win" Ya know, that kind of thing.

[SolidSamurai]

By the time man is able to live in space, nations will be moot. Everything will coexist as a megacorporation from one another. That is my belief.

Some corporations will have different cultures and societies from one another, and may be quite like a traditional government of a nation, but with more efficiency and tighter law. Politics, power and position standards will be far more complicated. Of course, the CEO is the president/PM equivalent, of which the owner must cooperate with. Some corporations might have imperial families of trillionaires, or they might be simply of one man (or woman, cough cough if that were ever possible cough). The owner would, by law be required to write a will, and might not even own everything; rather, they may simply own the higher echelons.

If aliens aren't intelligent enough to understand the concept of being 'bought out' or 'culturally assimilated', then likely they'll either be enslaved, kept downstairs (unlikely), or pushed aside through genocide (unlikely, humans aren't as dumb as they used to be unless there's some hate involved), or through being harrassed enough to move. If the aliens were equal or superior, or inferior in power (but only slightly on a interstellar scale, comparing something like America to Iran), then likely diplomacy would start and eventually business would shift in either direction. If things went for the worst (such as an economic matter of aliens out doing humans on the market that lead to a detesting of the aliens among humans), then war might begin. If the aliens were superior to us and we declared war, then god knows what would happen. Many of us would flee far away when things make a serious turn for the worst.

It doesn't matter how unhumanlike or humanlike superior creatures might be. If they can communicate with us, then these creatures will find ways to control us or force us into tolerance. Trust me. It doesn't matter how much we'd hate them. Chances are though, no matter what they look like, diplomacy would follow. See 'Mars Attacks!', ie. Those Aliens are fugly, and yet President Jack Nicholson is obsessed with the notion of an allegiance.

[masterofhobbiton]

And if the two (or more) races can't communicate? That's usually overlooked in most scifi scenarios (usually, not always). If evolution or god (personal choice there) could come up with so many random and varied methods of doing things here on earth, if the same thing happens on another planet then I sort of doubt there'll be much similar enough to chat with them.

[Toucan]

The instinct of self preservation will be a constant in any life form that reaches the ability of space flight.

All sentient life will be armed and dangerous.

I have often wondered, if we did develop the ability to send a manned vessel to another star, would we take weapons with us? Just in case.

[Seal]

what kind of alien lifeforms are there? based on carbon, that's quite likely, if not we're up to finding a new dimension to the periodic table of elements.

physics limit what kind of lifeforms there can be, and how they communicate. any space-faring civilization ought to have advanced communication, which is likely to be based on radio: it's very simple, reliable and performant.

language is a given for communication. very likely based on sound, too. however the alien might communicate, the method will have a set of rules and expressions which can be studied and replicated.

all in all alien species are very likely to be able to communicate with us. the will? probably also there. a lone traveler in space is not likely to be a threat, besides disposing of it might call for more evil stuff. it's also pointless to conquer a world upon encountering one, just because of the little gains compared to the expenses. i don't believe in aliens from outer space blowing up innocent planets for the lulz.


if it was up to me, I would.


please do put a bit more thought into your posts in the Intelllectual Roundtable. explaining how you came to the conclusion goes a long way.

[GenocideAlive]

The instinct of self preservation will be a constant in any life form that reaches the ability of space flight.
You seem rather confident that Western social structure will be a staple of all alien life, which seems a little strange. Considering that the Japanese were willing to starve themselves to death in caves so as to prevent themselves from being too much a burden on their economy, it seems unlikely that our societal worldview will be universal among thousands of species.

My take on it would be that our people would bring small arms for purposes of basic self-defense from nonsentient beings. Otherwise, space and weight best conserved for instrumentation, food, and other surveying equipment would be flat wasted. Even if we did encounter moderately hostile aliens, it would be extremely stupid to arm a scouting ship to the teeth. Not only are you not going to kill anything worthwhile with a scouting ship, but you're going to basically give them extensive information regarding our weaponry by permitting them to dissect its contents.

Not that it matters in the bigger picture, the vast majority of Terran weapons' chemistry are reliant on 20% atmospheric oxygen to perform. Not exactly abundant in space. Add to it that there'd have to be something to fight over, and unless we met a roving band of space pirates, it doesn't seem likely that they'd arm themselves to hijack ships. Even with a "Planet Jackers" scenario, the pirates would probably just wound the ship and let it limp home so they could relay its location back to the actual fleet.

[Toucan]

You seem rather confident that Western social structure will be a staple of all alien life, which seems a little strange. Considering that the Japanese were willing to starve themselves to death in caves so as to prevent themselves from being too much a burden on their economy, it seems unlikely that our societal worldview will be universal among thousands of species.

Those Japanese are just as human as you and I.
They are subject to the human condition as well, every human experiences emotion and has a strong will to live. Only if there is something wrong with an individual psychologically, or they have consciously chosen to fight there will to live in order to die for what they see as a cause, will anyone choose death over life.
I believe those Japanese chose to fight there will to live, they still had one I can assure you.
And for evolving life, the absence of an instinct for survival is just not possible. Life is to competitive. How could any life form evolve to the level of intelligence required to achieve space flight and not have an instinct to stay alive?.
Even if we did encounter moderately hostile aliens, it would be extremely stupid to arm a scouting ship to the teeth. Not only are you not going to kill anything worthwhile with a scouting ship, but you're going to basically give them extensive information regarding our weaponry by permitting them to dissect its contents.

A Human "scout ship", if equipped for the job, could potentially wipe out an entire world.
Not that it matters in the bigger picture, the vast majority of Terran weapons' chemistry are reliant on 20% atmospheric oxygen to perform.
So our guns need there own air tank, besides, your a chemist, you telling me you don't know how to make something go bang without oxygen?

[GenocideAlive]

I believe those Japanese chose to fight there will to live, they still had one I can assure you.
Whether I ever have the urges to rape a hot chick is grossly irrelevant to my day-to-day life. Why? Because I choose not to endorse that urge for a multitude of reasons. I hardly think the presence of a particular primal urge constitutes a species' cognisant choices.
And for evolving life, the absence of an instinct for survival is just not possible. Life is to competitive. How could any life form evolve to the level of intelligence required to achieve space flight and not have an instinct to stay alive?.
By achieving superiority in the Food Web faster than they have the chance to be selected against. At any juncture which one species could hold off tens of thousands of other species at bay with little to no effort, it has effectively rendered all will to kill moot. It is also worth noting that bringing weapons into space has more to do with one's value of its own life over that of another--NOT their particular will to live.
A Human "scout ship", if equipped for the job, could potentially wipe out an entire world.
A "scout ship" equipped to destroy worlds would not be a scout ship. It would be a war ship; said war ship would be very expensive and not very easy to mass produce. Thus, it defeats the entire purpose of scouting if every ship you have is armed to the teeth with weapons taking the place of precious cargo / surveying / instrument space. There is a reason that scouts in the military don't carry RPGs and M-60s.
So our guns need there own air tank, besides, your a chemist, you telling me you don't know how to make something go bang without oxygen?
I'm telling you that I don't know how to make something go bang in every forseeable atmospheric condition. The purpose of war is to eliminate your opponent's ability to make war. Pointlessly annihilating worlds / star systems is idiotic and wasteful. In other words, if you can't control a weapon, it isn't a weapon.

[Toucan]

I hardly think the presence of a particular primal urge constitutes a species' cognisant choices.

So you agree?, the primal urge is there.
By achieving superiority in the Food Web faster than they have the chance to be selected against. At any juncture which one species could hold off tens of thousands of other species at bay with little to no effort, it has effectively rendered all will to kill moot.
Sounds allot like the Shark, although the greater species of it do sit atop the food chain in most parts of the world and has for a very long time, it has hardly changed at all in more than 300 million years, hardly changed since it reached the top of the food chain because it doesn't need to.
Any life form that reaches the top of the food chain kills what ever it likes.
A "scout ship" equipped to destroy worlds would not be a scout ship. It would be a war ship; said war ship would be very expensive and not very easy to mass produce. Thus, it defeats the entire purpose of scouting if every ship you have is armed to the teeth with weapons taking the place of precious cargo / surveying / instrument space. There is a reason that scouts in the military don't carry RPGs and M-60s.
I agree, but what would be the actual difference between a scout ship and warship apart from payload?

Destroying an entire world would be wasteful, not to mention a truly, dare I say evil thing to do.
Your government has designed missiles that can intercept and destroy incoming nuclear missiles in space, there charges are effective.

[Anoiktos]

So our guns need there own air tank, besides, your a chemist, you telling me you don't know how to make something go bang without oxygen?
If he's a chemist, he's likely run into the traditional problem in science where the more you know, the more you know you don't know. Hence the reason he's able to more accurately poke holes in the idea of universally-applicable explosives. As an example, what kind of air tank do you use to keep the guns running when you're visiting a planet whose atmosphere is powerful enough to cut through steel? When you're visiting a planet whose gravity is great enough to turn that oxygen into liquid? How do you use explosives to destroy a star?

[Toucan]

1. How would anyone visit such a place? Any place we can't survive in doesn't matter if our equipment doesn't work there, quite simply because no human will ever find himself there.

2. Who ever suggested destroying an entire star? Personally, I think such a task would be impossible.

[GenocideAlive]

So you agree?, the primal urge is there.
Your argument is If A, Then B. I have said "A". This does not mean that I either agree or support your assertion of "Then B".
Sounds allot like the Shark, although the greater species of it do sit atop the food chain in most parts of the world and has for a very long time, it has hardly changed at all in more than 300 million years, hardly changed since it reached the top of the food chain because it doesn't need to.
We're nothing like the shark. The shark regularly loses fights to dolphins, can die of infections, etc. etc. It's an eating machine made to kill for food. It is extremely high on the food chain, but like many other predators, it is simply king in its limited domain. We are king of the planet and are impervious to any number of animals and threats. We have irreversibly changed the landscape for our benefit. The shark simply kills to feed itself.
I agree, but what would be the actual difference between a scout ship and warship apart from payload?
Engines, weapon systems, type of scanning equipment, hull materials, hull layout, and energy consumption. Think about the difference between a tank and a car.
Your government has designed missiles that can intercept and destroy incoming nuclear missiles in space, there charges are effective.
We also have had 30 years to design said missiles. I really don't think we can anticipate the result of nitrogen based charged in atmospheres of high pressure and multitudinous chemical compliment. It's like the difference of detonating a charge in water at 10m and detonating a charge in nitrogen/hydrogen/carbon/helium at 1,000,000m. Can you predict what will happen? Is the result going to be catastrophic? If you can't control it, it isn't a weapon.

[Toucan]

Your argument is If A, Then B. I have said "A". This does not mean that I either agree or support your assertion of "Then B".

My original statement was:
The instinct of self preservation will be a constant in any life form that reaches the ability of space flight.
There is no "B".
We're nothing like the shark. The shark regularly loses fights to dolphins, can die of infections, etc. etc. It's an eating machine made to kill for food. It is extremely high on the food chain, but like many other predators, it is simply king in its limited domain. We are king of the planet and are impervious to any number of animals and threats. We have irreversibly changed the landscape for our benefit. The shark simply kills to feed itself.
True, but we never sat on top of the worlds food chain until we evolved a mind that granted us the ability to create the tools to get us there. Before that time, we where prey and evolved many different abilities to keep ourselves alive.

And I agree weapon systems would be unpredictable in unknown atmospheres, but if the atmosphere of a world could not sustain us and is even dangerous to the point it even prevents our equipment from functioning correctly, why would we be fighting over it?

Plus as you said the goal of conflict is to destroy your enemies ability to make war, the best way to do that would be to intercept them in space before they can get to a colony or worse.

[GenocideAlive]

There is no "B".
I'm going to drop it. You are either completely oblivious of logic or you're simply being pigheaded. Either way, you may succeed at whatever points you were trying to prove. I am awash in apathy.
True, but we never sat on top of the worlds food chain until we evolved a mind that granted us the ability to create the tools to get us there. Before that time, we where prey and evolved many different abilities to keep ourselves alive.
This is not a synopsis of human evolution, it's something you made up.
And I agree weapon systems would be unpredictable in unknown atmospheres, but if the atmosphere of a world could not sustain us and is even dangerous to the point it even prevents our equipment from functioning correctly, why would we be fighting over it?
Let me think: because they can use it? If you can eat Cyanide and shit energy, despite the fact that Cyanide is directly poison to living creatures on Earth, it would undoubtably be a good idea for me to control the Cyanide. Unless, of course, I have no problems giving them free reign to an energy source that they can use to further ends against me.
Plus as you said the goal of conflict is to destroy your enemies ability to make war, the best way to do that would be to intercept them in space before they can get to a colony or worse.
I am ignorant of the ability for spacefaring creatures to be born. However, given the absence of heat, light, and energy in space, it seems unlikely that creatures borne of space will ever exist. Thus, every specie will have a home planet / system, where they can make more ships, weapons, and other items of war that we will have to confront. Simply attacking ships they have will require either knowledge of their routes, detection capabilities, or far superior speed to catch them. All are variables.

[Toucan]

I'm going to drop it.
So you should, you haven’t a leg to stand on, all life has a will to live, it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
This is not a synopsis of human evolution, it's something you made up.
Really? What do you think we evolved from GA? I was under the impression it was a primate.

We could have a much more interesting conversation discussing the evolutionary significance of an animal like the Lemur than we could just trying to piss each other off.
If you can eat Cyanide and shit energy, despite the fact that Cyanide is directly poison to living creatures on Earth
Do you have even a theory on how a living creature can live on cyanide?
Because I can prove for a fact they can live on oxygen. Take a breath.
The Earth demonstrates that there are laws of life over and over again and they are as unbreakable as the laws of physics.
I am ignorant of the ability for spacefaring creatures to be born.
So am I. I don’t think anyone has mentioned an idea of life forms that are born and live unprotected in space.

[femoimal]

the odds about alien life are that

1- if we bump into one, it will probably be molecule (read prion or other weird self-replicating RNA ancestor -controversy abounds there) or a fascinating single-cell organism (struggling to get a nucleus, a bit far from cramming singularity-warheads into relativistic missiles). Life on earth was wiped out and re-booted several times, but remained on that state for quite a white. No jupiter around to clean the solar system, and meteoritic impacts would keep on rebooting it for a long-long time.
With some luck, the biochemistry will be different from ours, different amino-acids and dextrogyrous configurations. If it is close, we might get a very nasty infection very fast. Small buggers are amazingly ressourceful.

2- if it bumps into us, we are toast. If it comes to us, it means that it is evolved enough to be expansionist (otherwise we'd be talking to sentient machines or membrane-folding information packets) and curious, but not enough to evolve beyond matter and conscience (and time?). If it is even a bit animal, odds are we are fried. Difference and misunderstandings can be a bitch in a pub when you have a pint. Imagine what it is when you have weapons that can tear up space-matter matrix.

3- if we do not bump into anything, then i do not know, we might never be rid of our animal selves (contradiction arising).

Dunno, i might be wrong.

PS: oh, and territory is something you pee around. No manifest destiny in the void.

[Toucan]

I have never understood how the presence of complex life on our own planet is taken to be evidence there would be no complex life elsewhere.

All we have is our own star system to observe at close range and in this model we know:-
The sun created all the planets that orbit it. (Except perhaps one of Saturn’s moons.)
Complex life is supported by this star system and on the world with the most appropriate temperate conditions, life is abundant.

Although it may be hard to accept, it's quite possible that the cycle of life begins long before the birth of a star and continues long after the star has died.

I’ve said it before and I will say it again, the absence of life from a middle aged star system will be the abnormality.

Creating worlds is what stars do.

EDIT: oh for crying out loud, it kept timing out on me, then I would come back and there was no post. Truly didnt mean to double post over and over like that.

[GenocideAlive]

Really? What do you think we evolved from GA? I was under the impression it was a primate.
Before you gather enough steam to ram yourself into a brick wall, we did not evolve from Primates, we evolved alongside them; we had a common ancestor. We now share the Order Primates with our cohorts. Unless you are willing to claim that your brother is your grandfather, please stop saying that humans evolved from Primates. I only say this because people claiming that we evolved from monkeys or the equivalent is a pet peeve of mine. You may continue with your "it's ridiculous to suggest that the shit I'm making up on the spot is wrong" posting.

[femoimal]

ahem, toucan, well, astronomicaly speaking, its not the sun that created the planets.
in some cases, the lighting up of the sun and the strong solar winds might even prevent planetary formation by evaporating the dust rings around the proto-star.

Its the gravitational collapse of the hydrogen cloud that gives birth to both the central sun and what will become its cohort. And i do not really clearly see how the cycle of life (self-replicating information) can begin in a hydrogen cloud a few degrees above absolute zero or blasted by intense radiation when the sun ignites.
And, once the star has died, well, life may continue as long as there is energy to harvest. Stars never really die, but go cold, and for some of them (M class, or red dwarfs), that might take dozens of billions of years. Energy then will be scarce, most of the universe will be iron or evaporating black holes. If life there is, it probably will have gotten elsewhere or elsetime.

On the other hand, stars DO give rise to life... when they die, because of nucleosynthesis : the heavy elements they create by fusioning light elements, once scattered by supernovas, go on to make the calcium, carbon, sulphur and potassion in our body.

But i would tend to side with your optimism about life sprouting everywhere.


Just a remark : genocide, you are impressive :D

[Toucan]

we did not evolve from Primates
Your right, humans are part of the primate group of mammals.

However further down the line humans where a lot closer in appearance to are tree climbing relatives.

[Toucan]

ahem, toucan, well, astronomicaly speaking, its not the sun that created the planets.
in some cases, the lighting up of the sun and the strong solar winds might even prevent planetary formation by evaporating the dust rings around the proto-star.

Once the cloud collapses it is part of the star. It is the energy the star provides in many different ways that expels it, creates the accretion disk and in turn the eventual larger satellites.
The birth of the star forms the accretion disk with stellar matter.
All of the accretion disk is created from stellar matter, all of the planets are made from the accretion disk.
All of the planets are created by the star.

And where does this "evaporated" matter go?
And, once the star has died, well, life may continue as long as there is energy to harvest.
Only if life truly does have the ability to lay dormant for an unimaginable amount of time could the idea that life can survive the death of its supporting star be correct. It's not a suggestion that it may survive in a highly evolved state, the idea is that microbes may be able to survive and one day join a cloud in the process of giving rise to a new star.
The suggestion is quite simply that the building blocks of life are present before the star itself even comes into existence.


By the way, our star is a "G" type star. "M" class is some thing from Star Trek.

[femoimal]

Contrary to the fantasy classes of the planets used in star-trek (hence your confusion), stars are really categorized depending on their color/mass/temperature and some trace elements. Here is a little song that will help you remember the spectral classes belonging to the hertzprung-russel diagram (not my song and definitely not the one i am singing alone in the shower):

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/4034/hrdiagramrt1.gif (http://imageshack.us)


http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/8117/spectralclassyo3.th.jpg (http://img54.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spectralclassyo3.jpg)


"Oh Be A Fine Girl Kiss Me (Right Now Sweetheart)"

O : blue giants, can reach 60 solar masses (or more?)
B : Blue
A : white
F : white
G : yellow . Our star is a G2v (v is for variable)
K : orange
M : reds, the most common in the universe

the R, N and S class stars are various stars that contain some carbon or other elements that alter their atmosphere, sharing many characteristics with the M dwarfs.

Ah, where does it goes when it evaporates ? in deep space, beyond the star's heliopause. Some remnants of this material can be seen in the Kuyper belt or even the Oort cloud. Some astronomers also believe that many planets are ejected out of star-systems and just wander cold in space . Anyway, a lot of dust dust would be ejected at high speed and crash into another hydrogen cloud, and perhaps initiate another star-birth.

It is gravity, not the star energy (fusion) that gives birth to proto-planets. The birth of the star is the [I]result of the gravitational collapse. But anyhow you are indirectly right : its the sun energy that is the real motor of life. Without the solar radiation to give energy to molecules, life would not get organized at all [look at the good ole Miller experiment].

On WHY some molecules start to replicate and start life, the answer is simple. Because they can. Every molecule is made of atoms that are chemically active: they will spontaneously bond with another molecule because of their electric charge or attract or repel water or oil. If you take in account all those affinities, the molecules soon take a shape, twist themselves so that their ends are all satisfied, kind of. Once this configuration is reached, some nests appear on the molecule : stray atoms or small molecules will spontaneously be attracted to those nests. Some because they flee water and find shelter there, some other because they are attracted to the positive charge etc... When those nests/sites because large and complex enough (NOT necessarily an incremental process), the things that they assemble are other outright molecules. If that molecule is a precursor or the very same molecule that contains the site, we have... life !!

'Cause life is nothing more than a self-replicating (3 dimensional) database. It is here because of chemistry, and evolves an interior, a nucleus and intelligence because ... because of nothing. Some do, some don't. Those who remain simple often succeed more. There is no real reason, and certainly no finality or goal. It is thermodynamics and physics (i.e. chemistry).

As life is chemistry, we should see it everywhere the reactions can take place, given time. by the way, this month's scientific american has a funny article on how we have absorbed alien life in our cells [ do not forget we may have more bacterial DNA than our original DNA in our cells, we keep on absorbing viral and bacterial DNA all the time - it is thanks to some weird bacteria's DNA that we can breathe].

[Toucan]

Some astronomers also believe that many planets are ejected out of star-systems and just wander cold in space [it is now commonplace to see that planets migrate away from the orbit in which they form : many gas giants detected around other stars are insanely close to their star, and literally evaporate away].
There is a theory that one object (one object out of our entire star system) came from out side our own solar system. It is not proven and even if it was, 1 object doesn’t constitute it being a "commonplace" occurrence.
Not only that the theory is that the planetoid left its star during its death, not at its birth and definitely not during its mid age.
many gas giants detected around other stars are insanely close to their star, and literally evaporate away]. Anyway, a lot of dust dust would be ejected at high speed and crash into another hydrogen cloud, and perhaps initiate another star-birth.

Not all astronomers agree with the hot Jupiter scenario, in fact many don't. Gas giants are "evaporating" around stars that are much older than our own yet some how still manage to be there for us to detect today.
Plus the formation of gas giants is dependant on ice in the accretion disk. Ice is the extra building block that makes them form.
Dust and matter leaves our system at birth and at death, in mid life nothing leaves
It is gravity, not the star energy (fusion) that gives birth to proto-planets. The birth of the star is the result of the gravitational collapse. But anyhow you are indirectly right : its the sun energy that is the real motor of life.
Gravity is energy, we have even invented devices and units to measure it.
And the star is the source of that gravity and every other energy source there. Did you really think I was refering to a different energy type?

[femoimal]

if you accept that the earth was formed by the collision of 2 planetoids the size of mars, you should also be prepared to accept a near miss that would send the planets into chaotic orbits or eject them rightaway.

But i must admit that i do not know the state of the protoplanet lumps around the sun while it is forming. What was the size of those lumps when the star ignited ?

Gravity is a force. Not an energy. We measure it like we measure other forces, such as the electro-magnetic one. The other forces are love...err no, wait a second, mothers in law... definitely not, strong nuclear interaction, weak nuclear interaction, electro-magnetic, and gravity. Energy is totaly different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unified_field_theory


about energy :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

i know its getting technical, but when you are talking science you should get accurate.

- about objects leaving the system : it does NOT mean they automatically get captured by another. Look at the scales, look at the speeds. The odds are dramaticaly against re-capture. Many lumps of protoplanets are surely slingshoted away during accretion, why not large ones ?

[Oblongato]

Is it conceivable that evolution could take place without competition?

If competition is is a necessary aspect of development, any other civilization we might encounter out there would have competing skills. This is not to say that there would automatically be open war. Humans, for example, have found more advantageous ways to compete and to make use of those that are weaker than outright conquering. Today, through the miracle of economics, societies sometimes even make make stronger those who are weak, even at the risk of being out-competed by them later, in order to reap the greatest advantage from the interaction.

I think it is likely that the most developed societies we might encounter would not be conquerers for the simple reason that the maximum competitive impulse is achieved through relative equality of strength among competing parties. To crush an enemy is to eliminate competition (at least for a time), thus reducing the competitive urge that fuels development. Maintaining the strength of one's competitors means that one's own competitive urge is kept at the highest (and developmentally speaking most productive) level.

We see this principle at work in nature all the time. If a predator becomes so successful that they eradicate their food source, they are doomed. Successful organisms exist in a balance with prey and competitors. While the balance of nature is often described as somehow peaceful and idyllic, it can also be seen as a long-term competitive process that has at this point in time led to beings that are even able to leave the orbit of their home planet. It is a war of sorts, but of the type that leaves all sides continually able to fight.

I suspect that if we were to encounter another civilization, we would find a similar situation.

[Toucan]

But i must admit that i do not know the state of the protoplanet lumps around the sun while it is forming. What was the size of those lumps when the star ignited ?

I didn't think they would start to form until the formation of the accretion disk, witch I thought formed after the collapse that creates the star. (I don't like the term "ignite" with stars, to me it suggests a gas flame or something of the like.)

And I stand humbly corrected on gravity, the links where interesting reading.
It is still however the power that built our star and our world.

Many lumps of protoplanets are surely slingshoted away during accretion, why not large ones ?
Quite possibly because there is more matter in a larger protoplanet formation.
More matter for the force of gravity to act upon.

[femoimal]

oblongato, i think you have a very interesting and very humanistic approach.

Unfortunately, i would say i do not think it would apply, because of the differences involved. A threat you do not how much about is more threatening than one which is familiar. It will be difficult at best to communicate anything with aliens, at first.

Of course, there is curiosity, that good ole impetus that made us what we are. Curiosity is a very strong instinct. Reaching across the void is a sign of curiosity. That might save us. On the other hand, reaching across the void might also mean expansionism. Another strong instinct is fear. Fear of the unknown, again, and fear of the future. People will want to make sure they are safe, and their offspring too. Aliens, motivated by fear and unsafe about their future, may begin a slaughter just like that.

or, we could become fantastic hunting trophee, like the head of tigers you put on the walls :)

also, i would like to point out the verified occurrences where human has destroyed its own ecosystem (easter island), its prey (mega-fauna of the americas) or its competition (think our extinct human cousins) across the ages. Willing or not willing.

Some people like competition when they cannot loose. That is called hunting.


toucan, i think the planetesimals begin appearing at the same time as the star core flashes on (better than ignite? afeter all, its the fusion process initiating in its core, must be quite a flash to behold). I ought to check that out though.
I agree with the power (radiation) of the star being necessary to get the chemical reactions going (thermodynamics my love).
Ah, did you investigated the origin of the Kuiper Belt and the Oort cloud ? might find an answer there !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud

check out their origins ! its nice to know thee neighbourhood !!

[Oblongato]

oblongato, i think you have a very interesting and very humanistic approach.

Unfortunately, i would say i do not think it would apply, because of the differences involved. A threat you do not how much about is more threatening than one which is familiar. It will be difficult at best to communicate anything with aliens, at first.

Of course, there is curiosity, that good ole impetus that made us what we are. Curiosity is a very strong instinct. Reaching across the void is a sign of curiosity. That might save us. On the other hand, reaching across the void might also mean expansionism. Another strong instinct is fear. Fear of the unknown, again, and fear of the future. People will want to make sure they are safe, and their offspring too. Aliens, motivated by fear and unsafe about their future, may begin a slaughter just like that.

or, we could become fantastic hunting trophee, like the head of tigers you put on the walls :)

also, i would like to point out the verified occurrences where human has destroyed its own ecosystem (easter island), its prey (mega-fauna of the americas) or its competition (think our extinct human cousins) across the ages. Willing or not willing.

Some people like competition when they cannot loose. That is called hunting.

I agree that in the first contact phase anything can happen. If fear takes over, both sides may indeed try to destroy one another. But assuming this phase does not result in the relatively immediate destruction of one or the other, I propose that more successful societies may have no interest in destroying their competitors. This is not for humanistic reasons, but for logical reasons that mimic evolution.

There was a time when the losers of wars were invariably raped and plundered. In the 20th century, however (perhaps earlier?), societies began to experiment with stabilizing defeated enemies instead of grinding them into the dirt. The result was expanded trade, which provided benefits superior to the plunder obtained from a completely destroyed enemy.

The destruction of ecosystems may also soon become obsolete. Just 100 years or so ago people didn't give a damn about the planet and plundered it mercilessly. Now the consequences of such actions are abundantly clear, and technologically advanced societies are beginning to think in terms of preservation.

My main point, however, is that societies that are always in competition are the best competitors. Knowing your opponent requires you to develop even more advanced methods of gaining a competitive edge. And those who play the game the most often get the most practice, become better.

If you compete against people who have no chance against you, you do not improve. I believe this is an evolutionary principle. Those who develop the fastest will be those who allow their competitors to reach equal strength. I am suggesting that societies that do this will leave in the dust those societies that simply conquer and destroy.

[GenocideAlive]

If you compete against people who have no chance against you, you do not improve. I believe this is an evolutionary principle. Those who develop the fastest will be those who allow their competitors to reach equal strength. I am suggesting that societies that do this will leave in the dust those societies that simply conquer and destroy.
Evolutionary principles do not apply to social structures.

The Roman Empire was notorious for assimilating or destroying civilizations that it fought, and was ludicrously successful. It lost to a bunch of loosely organized looters / mauraders. The most successful empire in the history of mankind collapsed not because it became obsolete because of lack of adequate competition, but rather because it became too large to effectively govern with the rudimentary communication and means of travel of the day. It literally failed because it was so wildly successful.

Anyway, interdependence of economies is what makes socialization superior to destroying. Opening trade routes permits both parties to benefit indefinitely from the existance of one another, while simply destroying and looting offers a non-renewable boon that is not conducive to stability. Much like milking a cow yields tens of thousands of gallons of milk for decades, whereas killing the cow gives you 500 lbs of meat that will last 3 months if you cure it.

[femoimal]

besides, look at the United States. After the CCCP block collapsed, it found competition elsewhere. Even inside (the delightfully absurd concept of world-wide organized terrorism as the major threat to civilization). I do not recall the Chinese dynasties having found worthy competition either, still they thrived (i might be contradicted here).

To say power/civilization blocks would herd a possible contestant in order to comply with Darwinian evolutionary fitness is a bit too rosy : in recent Europe, the helping of defeated nations was sought just as an offensive maneuver against another exterior threat. If England was clement to the French its was because of the Prussians. If the US were nice to defeated Germany (and initialy they weren't, Roosevelt wanted to raze all of german's industry to the ground and turn the country into farmland), it was to fight against the advance of the Commies.

No, as with capitalism which is thoroughly incapable of self-regulation, so is expansionism. Our only hope is that alien civilizations are more about getting profit and tourist souvenirs than trying to convince the universe they worship the correct god.

[Oblongato]

Evolutionary principles do not apply to social structures.

The Roman Empire was notorious for assimilating or destroying civilizations that it fought, and was ludicrously successful. It lost to a bunch of loosely organized looters / mauraders. The most successful empire in the history of mankind collapsed not because it became obsolete because of lack of adequate competition, but rather because it became too large to effectively govern with the rudimentary communication and means of travel of the day. It literally failed because it was so wildly successful.

I.e. it had no serious competitors and failed to evolve an adequate strategy to deal with its problems? In any case, I think evolutionary principles apply to everything, including social structures. Would you seriously argue that the social structures of 5 thousand years ago, or even 500 years ago, would be capable of competing with modern social structures?

Anyway, interdependence of economies is what makes socialization superior to destroying. Opening trade routes permits both parties to benefit indefinitely from the existance of one another, while simply destroying and looting offers a non-renewable boon that is not conducive to stability. Much like milking a cow yields tens of thousands of gallons of milk for decades, whereas killing the cow gives you 500 lbs of meat that will last 3 months if you cure it.

I don't see that this in any way contradicts my argument. In fact, you seem to be saying some of the same things. The interdependence of economies you mention means for me stable channels through which societies are able to compete.

[Oblongato]

besides, look at the United States. After the CCCP block collapsed, it found competition elsewhere. Even inside (the delightfully absurd concept of world-wide organized terrorism as the major threat to civilization). I do not recall the Chinese dynasties having found worthy competition either, still they thrived (i might be contradicted here).

To say power/civilization blocks would herd a possible contestant in order to comply with Darwinian evolutionary fitness is a bit too rosy : in recent Europe, the helping of defeated nations was sought just as an offensive maneuver against another exterior threat. If England was clement to the French its was because of the Prussians. If the US were nice to defeated Germany (and initialy they weren't, Roosevelt wanted to raze all of german's industry to the ground and turn the country into farmland), it was to fight against the advance of the Commies.

No, as with capitalism which is thoroughly incapable of self-regulation, so is expansionism. Our only hope is that alien civilizations are more about getting profit and tourist souvenirs than trying to convince the universe they worship the correct god.

My point is that a society without adequate competition will generally stagnate and fail - maybe not immediately, see the case of the Chinese dynasties, but their relatively slow development and slow-changing nature render them vulnerable to attack from societies that are primed on competition.

I would even go so far as to suggest that the reasons given at the time by the decision makers for not completely destroying a defeated enemy are not relevant when observing the effects. Now that we have observed the effects, our observations may serve as a basis to do the same thing today for different reasons.

Basically, I am saying that it is competition that fuels evolution of all types - biological, social, economic, etc. - and that societies that are competitively motivated develop faster than those that are not. Would you disagree with this?

[femoimal]

dear christian god, i'd never thought i would say that one day, but i think youare pushing darwinism too far ( i humbly beg your pardon, dear Charles). I doubt that "societies that are competitively motivated develop faster than those that are not". They develop differently.

I am not a sociologist, but i am convinced that societies do not develop in a vacuum. They always have inner centripetal forces and issues to address that keep them on their toes anyhow. If they have an arch-enemy or tough competitor, the risks are that is will trigger rather unfortunate events rather than good. War, slavery, hardened cult, population persecution (mac Carty here i am) and several more ills.
Egypt had a varied competition, either from the people of the Sea, from Elam, from Soudan, the Assyrians etc... The high times of the egyptian dynasties where reached in spite of their neighbour's behaviour.

Basically, i think societies emerge (i would not quote Jarred Diamond but i could) spontaneously when the excess of food production allows communities to take care of non-productive specialists. This in turn gives rise to a power structure, and this power structure then steers the society in order to keep its privileges. This is already a struggle.

Of course, there is civilizational transpiration, trans diffusion. Cultures communicate, and ideas/technologies/art get conducted along contact lanes between societies (think of writing). But it does not make, to my humble opinion, drive a darwinian race between those societies. It is rather like the bacteria exchanging bits of DNA.

Now, would be change our behavior in order to comply with a Darwinian society relationship ? We could, i presume. But societies are complex beasts that have a life on their own, i would not be very confident in the outcome.

PS: i am still queasy about all this. I dunno. Look, technology takes leaps when a war is happening. Applied technology at least. But for how long ? how long before it all stagnates and crystallizes and society grinds to a halt ? In times of peace, you have arts, philosophy, theoretical science, human sciences. What does that mean ?

[Oblongato]

When I say evolution, I am not using the term in the strict Darwinian sense, but rather to mean development by degrees to a more advanced state.

And by competition I refer not only to military conflict but also economic competition, political competition social competition etc. I consider these more stable, long-term channels of competition than military conflict.

Change is not random. Change, whether directed by individuals or not, either succeeds or fails in the environment where it takes place. If change represents an improvement, it generally displaces the less successful conditions that existed previously. This is competition, and in competition, change begets more change as living organisms, humans included, struggle to adapt to survive under new circumstances. The more one adapts, the better one becomes at adapting. Hence, the more competition one survives the better able one is to compete.

Even if humans do not see themselves as competitively motivated, everything we do can be looked at in terms of its success. Does an idea vanish without a trace, or does it influence future generations? Even in the arts ideas are in competition, even if the individuals themselves did not see what they were doing as competitive.

Evolution normally has little to do with intent; it is simply a process of development in which less successful species, societies, ideas etc. are displaced by more successful ones. Humans have become successful because we are good at adapting.

My point: among human societies, those that are compelled to adapt the most often tend to be the ones that advance the most quickly. A society in competition, whether it be military, economic or cultural, advances more quickly than a society in which no competitive pressure exists. This, in turn, would be the motivation to make the conscious decision to preserve, rather than destroy competitors.

[GenocideAlive]

My point: among human societies, those that are compelled to adapt the most often tend to be the ones that advance the most quickly. A society in competition, whether it be military, economic or cultural, advances more quickly than a society in which no competitive pressure exists. This, in turn, would be the motivation to make the conscious decision to preserve, rather than destroy competitors.
Please source the highlighted portions. Whereas previously I would argue with you, I've now gotten to the point where I'm not going to sit and play your semantics run-arounds. You are extremely adept at putting forth ideas based upon concepts with a complete lack of evidence. I'm simply asking you for the qualification of the assertions you're making.

Wikipedia would refer to your speech as "weasel words": used to avoid making a straightforward statement. Weasel words are also used to deceive, distract, or manipulate an audience.

[Oblongato]

So you don't like my theory then? (Mine, of course, if no one else out there that I am not aware of hasn't already said, it, which is a distinct possibility.)

Btw, not that you are obliged in any way to address my previous points, but it would have been interesting to hear your response. Forgive me if I feel a bit weaseled on just to have you skip over most of what I've been saying.

But I'll play along anyway.

First, I cannot see how you can apply the term weasel words in this case. All of my statements have been straightforward.

If it's the sources you miss, this could very well be because my argument is speculative. Surely you are not going to tell me that speculation with a logical basis is not suitable material for the intellectual round table?

I was thinking about evolution and competition and thought it might be applicable to speculation on the nature of advanced extraterrestrial societies. I can't possibly be the first to observe parallels to biological evolution and political, societal and economic evolution. And I couldn't think of a situation where rapid development was not accompanied by competition. Are there any?

So I posed the question whether there can be evolution (in the sense of development to a more advanced state) without competition. Would not a society motivated by competitive pressure not develop faster than one without that form of motivation? I was thinking here about the arms race and the space race, specifically, but I think economic competition also applies.

Negative examples might include the stagnation in terms of motivation that follows being left without competition. The U.S. after World War II, for example, could be argued for a time to have become less motivated, less efficient, less productive. The fact that the U.S. was at the time responsible for 60% of the worlds economic output indicates that there was not much around in the way of competition. Quality declined to the point where American made was a reason not to buy something. The auto industry was far too slow to adapt when it became apparent that the Japanese had far surpassed it in manufacturing quality. Now that it is struggling to survive, quality has improved markedly.

Similarly, behind the iron curtain there was no real competition between car companies. Some were better than others, but every car made was sold, regardless, and demand was never met. Improvement, to say the least, did not keep up with the competitive, capitalist West, where improvement was the key to survival. When the iron curtain fell, the Trabant company failed almost immediately and other East Bloc companies were sold to western manufacturers.

Any society today that closes its borders to competition from outside, I believe, will quickly become unable to compete with the rapid progress taking place outside. North Korea is an example here.

Obviously, these phenomena can be discussed from other perspectives as well. But I think it is also interesting to lay the template of evolutionary development over them.

[GenocideAlive]

I can see why you would feel cheated, because your mode of argument is based upon building a giant pool of logic and then connecting it via extremely flawed means to a conclusion. Yes, we can all agree that "A + B = C", but the problem lay in that once we arrive to "C" you are immediately saying "If C then D, because A + B = C". I took to arguing with you by several means on different occasions in order to illustrate this, but you successfully managed to drown me in your drowning pool (of logic).

As for your "proofs", you have as of yet to offer an example. You are just trying Argument via Analogy with car companies. Suffice it to say, making cars has absolutely nothing to do with the fall of a civilization due to its (un)willingness to destroy its competitors.

[Oblongato]

While I am flattered to think you believe that I have drowned you in a pool of logic, I still don't feel that your criticisms are fair.

You've suggested that I might be trying to "deceive, distract, or manipulate an audience." What could possibly be my motivation to do that? Sorry, I just don't get it. I'm not here for any other reason than to discuss stuff. I'm not a scholar on these topics, and I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I would hope that anyone who disagrees, however, would take the trouble to say exactly why.

If my observations of specific instances, which I believe support my argument, don't suit you, exactly what sort of support are you looking for? Apparently you don't like analogies, though I can't see why not. Personally, I thought the car industry was a good example of an element of the principle I am arguing for at work.

You are welcome to break my argument into pieces if you feel that parts of it rest on a shaky foundation. That should get you around the "if C then D" problem.

Maybe you could indicate an area where you don't think my argument applies.

And maybe, just maybe, by doing so you will convince me I am wrong. (It has happened before.) I promise you I will not go down fighting for a losing idea. If you can demonstrate well enough that it's garbage, I will concede.

Your attack on the car industry analogy, by the way, was an A + B = D, leaving C out of the mix.

The car industry analogy was intended to show the influence of competition on development. The idea that constant, stable competition produces faster development than brief, intense competition followed by periods of stagnation was a separate point. I supported that point by referring to the prosperity (and accompanying scientific, economic and political development) that resulted largely from trading / competing (long-term, stable competition) with defeated, but not destroyed enemies (Japan, Germany). It will be interesting to see how development in the U.S. responds to the challenge presented by China's economic and technological rise. My prediction: if the U.S. rises to the challenge of direct competition, development (evolution) will accelerate. If it closes its borders to trade, development will stagnate.

[GenocideAlive]

Your car analogy was nice and showed off some of the finer points of Capitalism, as I said. However, also as I said, you have not proven in any shape or measure your initial thesis of "Destroying Conquered Societies Creates Lack of Competition in Societies Which In Turn Produces Inferior Societies". You have simply compared a microcosm within government types.

[Seal]

this is getting way too personal, here. i don't want a flamewar, some of us, though, might.


however, Oblongato, please do source your non-obvious statements better: them lead to meta-argument, and them are bad.

[femoimal]

bah seal, it is not personal at all. GA wants something solid to bite at, so do i.

We should not (and oblongato does not, to his immense credit) take every argument as a personal vendetta. Listen to speeches of philosophers/diplomats/scientists, and believe me, they are not afraid of hurting the others' feelings :P ( do read Melany Klein vs Freud's Daughter, it is lovely, just lovely).

i too am waiting for examples, eagerly, so i can repop in the discussion. Japan and Germany are not valid ones (i talked about those in a previous post).

nobody's flaming. Everything's cool. We guys are talking.

[Oblongato]

Your car analogy was nice and showed off some of the finer points of Capitalism, as I said. However, also as I said, you have not proven in any shape or measure your initial thesis of "Destroying Conquered Societies Creates Lack of Competition in Societies Which In Turn Produces Inferior Societies". You have simply compared a microcosm within government types.

Since it is difficult to point to a single cause of the the decline of a conquering power (e.g. the Roman Empire, though some historians have argued that arrogance and complacency played a role in its decline), perhaps the best example would be to point to the success of countries that traded with their former enemies after WWII, the famous examples being Japan and Germany.

In response to femoimal's objection, I had suggested the following:

...the reasons given at the time by the decision makers for not completely destroying a defeated enemy are not relevant when observing the effects. Now that we have observed the effects, our observations may serve as a basis to do the same thing today for different reasons.
Important is the fact that Germany and Japan were not annihilated and later contributed to the prosperity of the countries that had defeated them. Whether the leaders at the time wished to annihilate them is irrelevant. The fact is that they were gradually given back their sovereignty and were aided in their development by their former enemies.

The Russians, on the other hand, looted the countries they gained control of following WWII and imposed absolute political control over them. The fact that they also imposed a system, communism, that did not harness competition as motivation also did not help.

The two systems were isolated from each other for only a relatively short period of time, less than 40 years. But in that short time all of the countries behind the iron curtain had declined to a deplorable state.

While it is not proof, I think it is plausible to suppose that less looting and less political domination would have resulted in faster development and a smaller or non-existent competitive gap.

*****************

By the way: as I said before, this was a speculative proposal on my part.

While I did not provide a great deal of supporting evidence, there was some, and, I would argue, enough so that claims like "not proven in any shape or measure" are not justified.

Under the circumstances, I think it would be fair of me to request at this junction that anyone who attacks me (or rather, my argument ;)) on the evidence point should provide some evidence that counters my argument.

[Seal]

bah seal, it is not personal at all. GA wants something solid to bite at, so do i.

it's a very thin line between that and outright trolling. be careful.

[GenocideAlive]

Seal, you're being rather trollish yourself. We have people who are engaged in a discussion with no problems, here. No one is claiming that they are being wronged in any way, nor have there been any complaints in that regard. What exactly are you trying to accomplish? If you want to participate or moderate something, do so with clear and lucid verbage. Otherwise, standing around with your arms crossed warning people talking to "be careful" is rather churlish.
While I did not provide a great deal of supporting evidence, there was some, and, I would argue, enough so that claims like "not proven in any shape or measure" are not justified.

Under the circumstances, I think it would be fair of me to request at this junction that anyone who attacks me (or rather, my argument ) on the evidence point should provide some evidence that counters my argument.
Ah, ah, ah! You just walked directly into Negative Proof. You have not presented a remotely convincing case for your argument. You have made several Arguments via Analogy regarding the economical relationships between countries, but you still have as of yet to present any evidence supporting your initial thesis. Russia did not destroy or loot countries under its authoritarian rule any more than the US did. And arguably, those countries that Russia imposed a rule over had little to no industrialization, accounting for a rather obvious gap in the quality of life in Russia vs the West.

I stated very openly that the most successful civilization in Ancient History was a civilization notorious for utterly destroying other societies. They would take all citizens as slaves, and basically overwrite their entire culture. Almost single-handedly, they civilized the Western world. There is a potent reasoning behind the 6 Romance Languages, and that lay in the rootword "Roman". They destroyed societies altogether, then set up and established trade routes with the new Roman outposts. There is no need for them to have any "competition" or "trade" with these societies. They simply need to exploit the resources as a vassal state.

Your retort was that maybe if they'd permitted other societies to flourish, they would not have had the vulnerabilities to fall as they did. This is pure conjecture and can apply to nearly every fallen civilization under the sun, cooperative or not. There is little to no guarantee that there was any way for the Romans to head off the fall of Rome after the death of Julius Caesar. He, after all, put it all together and made it the tremendous success that it was. It wasn't until 5th century AD that Diocletian (sp?) cut it into halves, after which the West half rapidly went under. It's worth noting that the East half operated under a bastardized version of Roman rule for another thousand years.

[Oblongato]

Ah, ah, ah! You just walked directly into Negative Proof.

Wasn't intended as proof, just a request for what I would consider fairness. Anyway, you have done that here, so hey.

You have not presented a remotely convincing case for your argument. You have made several Arguments via Analogy regarding the economical relationships between countries, but you still have as of yet to present any evidence supporting your initial thesis. Russia did not destroy or loot countries under its authoritarian rule any more than the US did. And arguably, those countries that Russia imposed a rule over had little to no industrialization, accounting for a rather obvious gap in the quality of life in Russia vs the West.

What was my initial thesis again? Ah yes, now I remember.

Point taken on the industrialization thing. Nevertheless, the situation under Russian domination could be described as a degeneration, which began even before Reagan forced the Soviets into the arms race that ruined their economy, such as it was.

And perhaps you could help me out here. What kind of evidence, apart from analogy of course, would you like to see? Could you provide a hypothetical example?

I stated very openly that the most successful civilization in Ancient History was a civilization notorious for utterly destroying other societies. They would take all citizens as slaves, and basically overwrite their entire culture. Almost single-handedly, they civilized the Western world. There is a potent reasoning behind the 6 Romance Languages, and that lay in the rootword "Roman". They destroyed societies altogether, then set up and established trade routes with the new Roman outposts. There is no need for them to have any "competition" or "trade" with these societies. They simply need to exploit the resources as a vassal state.

Your retort was that maybe if they'd permitted other societies to flourish, they would not have had the vulnerabilities to fall as they did. This is pure conjecture and can apply to nearly every fallen civilization under the sun, cooperative or not. There is little to no guarantee that there was any way for the Romans to head off the fall of Rome after the death of Julius Caesar. He, after all, put it all together and made it the tremendous success that it was. It wasn't until 5th century AD that Diocletian (sp?) cut it into halves, after which the West half rapidly went under. It's worth noting that the East half operated under a bastardized version of Roman rule for another thousand years.

As it turned out, there were aspects of the modus operandi of the Roman Empire that eventually doomed it. But they had quite a good run there for a while. (Your suggestion that there was no way to head off the fall after the death of Julius Caesar is a bit like saying the newborn baby was unable to to avoid his untimely demise at the ripe age of 146.) Long term, their technological development came to a halt, they became unable to adequately feed their people due to the failure to advance agriculturally, political corruption set in etc., and I would argue that these and other signs of decline in the long term were intrinsic in the system. Just as the Europeans later fueled their economies with the spoils of colonization, the end was in sight when expansion failed.

I don't think anyone would make the argument that conquering does not work to an extent. (I am not making that argument.) I do think that through the maintaining of trade relations with other societies and the existence of stability and competition among societies the inevitability of a decline such as the one suffered by Rome could be avoided. It would seem that a populace that need not struggle to survive does begin to decline in terms of motivation. I've seen it in the U.S. and German post-war generations as social systems are established that make it possible basically to become unproductive and expect government to take up the slack (excessively generous social system, decline of individual responsibility).

Difficult to test, since the current situation is relatively new, and probably without close historical parallels. (But hey, it's a speculative argument, after all.) The playing field today has changed drastically, not least due to information technology, which has aided the spread of technology to countries that found themselves in a very primitive state even half a century ago. The information age has also opened up direct channels of competition among societies (i.e. trade).

Is the total destruction of enemies (i.e. competing trade partners) a solution today that promises to provide greater benefits than stoking the competitive engines and responding with faster development? Does it seem plausible that the act of disabling, looting and dominating competitors will provide faster, longer-term developmental (evolutionary) benefits? What does the disappearance of practices such as slavery and outright conquering say about the viability of these systems? The world is a pragmatic place. If these practices worked better than the alternatives, they would still be in place today.

In the modern world, which is by every measure the most technologically, economically and socially advanced phase of development the planet has seen, it no longer seems to make sense for advanced societies to crush potential competitors.

[femoimal]

actually, there is an evolutionary competition that might doom our civilization, but it's not the one that springs to mind.

its the viral/bacterial/prion menace.

....And i sure do not want to keep the opposition strong. Unfortunately, some severely mentally-impaired criminal morons feeding antibiotics to cattle do it for me.

maybe the fate of the little green men from Mars will be ours, before they arrive here. Crap. And i wanted to go into the touristic industry business.

[tzzA]

When (if) Mankind garners the technology to travel the stars and has the military might to conquer them what, in moral terms, would we be entitled too? Would it be our right to conquer alien species (if they exist) and their planets for the benefit of our own race (resources/manual labour)? Or would we only take certain sectors (our solar system/galaxy etc.)?

And if we do meet alien races technology inferior to us - should we contact them (and possibly give them access to our technology)? And if we encounter a species that does not resemble us in any way, but displays some intelligence - would it be justifiable to use it as manual labour for the benefit of mankind?

Hmm. Humans have an odd tendency to want things that aren't necessarily theirs. Really, I don't think that what is morally justifiable to the masses is going to have much bearing on what happens. :/ Somewhere, somebody will have the desire to do something that may be deemed morally unacceptable. All they have to do is prevent anyone from finding out. Our 'right' to do something tends to be determined by whether or not we succeed.

[X9]

In the event of interplanetary civilization that began on Earth, to be frank, I'm not quite sure what the hell would happen. However, since I'm writing a post, might as well give my two cents; popular culture is heavily poisoned by science-fiction games and fictions that make my decision difficult to come about. However, I see a cultural schism; an explosion and modification of religions and popular culture that attempt to explain and reconcile these alien species. I think that slavery is far off; if we encounter another alien race, it's somewhat likely that they're the more advanced one that made contact with us, so we would not immediately be forced into a situation where we consider war against other species or slavery. However, it is inevitable; after we have built a substantial presence, the sins hidden within the humane impulsion to success and ultimate achievement will blossom into the manifestation of slavery, domination, invasion, and whatnot. Don't flame me too hard, 'cuz I'm not the social scientist nor deep intellectual on non-biology matters. XD

Regards,

X9, StarCraft.Org Fan Fiction Moderator

[femoimal]

what about us becoming pets ?

[EvilEggCracker]

I presume that we'd put up a good fight beforehand. Some sort of alien "Zoo of the Universe" is a possibility that has been explored many times in Science Fiction. However, if that were the case I believe the Xeno would pick off a small amount of Humans rather than the entire species, much like animals in our zoo's today. We have plenty of them out in the wild. If anything, it would be because of the fuss it would cause.

[singo]

Somewhere, somebody will have the desire to do something that may be deemed morally unacceptable. All they have to do is prevent anyone from finding out. Our 'right' to do something tends to be determined by whether or not we succeed.


I dont think it will be neccessary to "keep people from finding out" humans can convince each other genocide is a good idea (apologies to GA) even on people that look similar to them, how much easier would it be if the opposition really DID look different in rather fundamental ways?

Of course war/genocide/general bastardyness is going out of fashion so with any luck by the time first contact is made humanities first instinct WONT be to piss off the entire universe.


As for morality, if it is intelligent, it has the same set of rights as we do, disregarding ones that might be physically not applicable.

[Oblongato]

It is also possible that if we were to encounter life we would not recognize it, or it would not recognize us. We, or they, might commit genocide without even being aware of there being anything there. Why, we could be doing that on our own planet now as I write.

That said, if it is unconscious genocide, I hope it's us doing it and not them.

[singo]

That said, if it is unconscious genocide, I hope it's us doing it and not them.

Who wouldn't?

If it comes down to it, I think everyone would rather be on the genociding side than the one genocided.

And yes I realise neither of those are real words.