Encounter with aliens

[sanctus]

In the thread about "our hand in the universe" I started thinking about the fact on how we humans would react if aliens were to come visiting our planet or we would get to visit an alien civilization.

Well if we are those more advanced, then I guess again a kind of colonization would start (or maybe more in the direction of economic exploitation). I know this contrdicts what I said in the thread "can one believe in mankind", but seeing the actual politics and politicians (i.e friend Bush :D ) it seems the most likely; if I consider even the expansion of fundamentalism (islamic AND cristian), then it almost becomes certain that we would exploit this aliens, as we are the ones selected by god.

 

What would happen the other way around? Does very high technology imply high acceptance?

[TINNY]

Does very high technology imply high acceptance?

what do you mean by this?

 

anyway, either there would be war or cooperation.

[sanctus]

yes, ther would be either war or cooperation or some mixture of these two. My question was what do you think it will be.

 

What I mean by asking if very high technology implies very high acceptance, is simply the question if a lifeform can be very technologically advanced and still go easily at war

(even more easily if the others are different).

[pgrmdave]

I don't think that high technology implies high acceptance simply because highER technology hasn't implied highER acceptance. Wisdom and knowledge are seperate things.

[pgrmdave]

If we were more advanced than them, I don't know what we would do. I think that the scientific community would be the ones having most of the contact with the aliens, simply because they could learn to communicate quicker. If that were not the case, then it would depend on the culture that made contact. If it were America, or most of Europe, we would go through the same things that usually happen when we find new cultures: Try to make them into carbon copies of ourselves, try to exploit them economically, try to convert them to "save their souls", try to enslave them, and if all else fails, genocide is a perfectly acceptable answer, so long as you don't call it that. After a few decades, centuries, or millenia of that, we would realize our mistake and apologize to them, while refusing to provide any actual reparations.

[pgrmdave]

Not that I'm cynical or anything :)

[sanctus]

now it's the third time I write this reply, I'm on a portable computer and it seems to be easier in this case to something wrong and lose everything.

 

AQnyway as I wrote already and it will be found somewhere in the metaversum, did you split your answer in three parts only to catch up with me? :-)

 

seriously, for the same reason as yyou say that high technology doesn't imply high acceptance, I believe it can imply (in the human case it did).

Take the technological revoultion to atomic energy for example. There have been two choices either we use it the wrong way around and it was the last revolution or we use it the right way around and will then be able to make another revolution. So as we manged to not destroy ourselves we have devolopped a stronger acceptance between ourselves. That is exactly my point, if a race is able to develop a new technology and then not destry itself it has developped a higher acceptance.

[pgrmdave]

But the question is why haven't we destoyed ourselves. If it is because of a greater understanding of the need for peaceful solutions, then you are right. I think, however, that the reason we haven't is more due to self-preservation and Mutually Assured Destruction. We know that if we use atomic power to harm others, the fallout could affect us, so it could be self-damaging, hence, we would only use it in cases of extreme emergency. And if we used it, it would justify others using it on us. If a species is technologically advanced but has only refrained from destroying themselves because everyone has doomsday devices and nobody wants to give others reason to use them, it doesn't show a high acceptance.

[sanctus]

It doesn't show a high acceptance on the spot, but as you don't eliminate the other ones you need to accept them, therefore it implies high acceptance

[Freethinker]

It doesn't show a high acceptance on the spot, but as you don't eliminate the other ones you need to accept them, therefore it implies high acceptance

I think we have shown that higher technologies result in fewer physical military interactions. The results of the application of technology result in more damage per event. This seems to create a greater abhorance of their usage. Technology and "civiliation" of society seem to go hand in hand.

 

Though one has to wonder with the current Exec Admin in the US if this trend is reversing.

[sanctus]

Though one has to wonder with the current Exec Admin in the US if this trend is reversing.

 

Well, I hope this is just a fluctuation of the observable trend........ :)

[infamous]

Consider the plow horse, if we are more advanced than they are, they will be in the fields. If they are more advanced than we, we'll be pulling the plow. Sadly, that's the way we treat each other at present, no reason to believe we are ready to change any time in the near future. Let's just hope if ET shows up on our door step, that he is more benevilent than we are.

[sanctus]

and then we can enslave him....

 

It seems that you really think that there are just this two ways.Don't you think we may learn one day?

[IrishEyes]

Don't you think we may learn one day?

 

Learn what, sanctus?

 

What lessons do you think we need to learn? And WHO needs to learn them? People in your country? Or people in mine? Or people all over the world? And WHO is going to teach us these lessons? Sorry, I know that's strying a bit from the alien talk, but I think you've brought up some very interesting questions with your question to infamous.

[sanctus]

Learn what, sanctus?

 

LEarn not to make the same mistakes.

 

 

What lessons do you think we need to learn? And WHO needs to learn them? People in your country? Or people in mine? Or people all over the world?

Well what lesson, just to see what has hurt makind itself and not repeat it. All the people has to learn them, that means the people of your and my country, just because many small make a big.

 

And WHO is going to teach us these lessons?

 

I would say it's our own History (i.e history of mankind) that should teach us this lessons and maybe a bit logic wouldn't hurt neither :hihi:

[infamous]

LEarn not to make the same mistakes.

 

 

Well what lesson, just to see what has hurt makind itself and not repeat it. All the people has to learn them, that means the people of your and my country, just because many small make a big.

 

 

 

I would say it's our own History (i.e history of mankind) that should teach us this lessons and maybe a bit logic wouldn't hurt neither :hihi:

I believe we call that morality, and the proper question as Irish is implying, where do we learn morality. (Excuse me Irish, I don't mean to put words in your mouth) but I do believe that was the question, where and what authority will have control of this great task. I think we all agree that mankind needs some instruction here. Any ideas?

[sanctus]

No I don't agree that mankind needs some outside instruction. I believe mankind can do that just by the normal evolution of time and therefore of the human race.

I also think that no authority has the task to learn morality, simply because it would nevr work. See for exmple what Bush is doing now, he tries to teach some morality (this morality that I judge pseudo-religious, i.e no abortion, no acceptance of homosexuals,...),does it work? No, it works only for the people that either already thought like him or that percentage of people who is a sheep (ie folows without thinking), but there stays about a 40% who doesn't agree. This is a good example why you can't teach morality, as it has to have about 99% of the individuals composing a society that think the same way to make ân other way imoral.

This has been an example why there is no authority that can teach morality, it just comes along by itself. Take for example the position of the woman in western societies. In the 19th century it was considered immorall, that woman would wear trousers, now it has change: time changed morality to what I think is better.