When you typed that, in my head it played through as Mordin's voice ...

I like to think of the human race a little more civil than animals. Regardless, "natural selection" isn't a very appealing excuse for attempted genocide.

Edit: After re-reading it, I kinda felt like Mordin.

Did you read origin of species? Conquering over innocent culture groups isn't natural selection. Natural selection would be the trait that makes you more superior would just be passed down. Natural selection is not the social Darwinism it has come to epitomize. It just so happens that creatures who do not have a varied trait passed down will be less apt to adapt. Natural selection is what it sounds: NATURE making the selection. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a tree hugger or firm pacifist (considering i love violent videogames). But please I hope nobody else makes the mistake of ever intertwining the art of war and the art of nature (ie natural selection) ever together. In fact, when I read origin of species many ages ago, I'm sure Darwin even said it's not holistically applicable to humans (or I think he said that in the Descent of Man.. can't remember)

And also I would love to point out that famous proverb by a philosopher whom I forgot, "Animals kill, but it is humans who murder." Displacing an alien culture group from its home planet to make room for ourselves is NOT natural selection.

Indeed, now I hear it too. Damn Bioware, burning Mordin's voice in our heads... <_<

All these worlds are yours except Ganymede, Callisto, Europa, Enceladus, and Titan. Attempt no landings there.

I think if we find life anywhere in the Solar System, we leave it alone. It doesn't matter whether it's self-replicating molecules or microbes or things a little more complex, on any of these moons, we leave them alone. We shouldn't disturb those ecosystems.

And also, how can we terraform Mars? It doesn't have a magnetosphere. How could we keep an atmosphere around it? The solar wind and radiation would just destroy it.

You want us all to die? If there are other intelligent species out there, then they won't be perfect either. No species is perfect. Those that can think are violent by nature. Those that aren't aren't doing anything but reproducing and (possibly)eventually resulting in a species that can think, which will be violent. If violence is to be gone from the world, all life must be eradicated and prevented from existing. If there is no life in the world, then who is in this world to learn about it? Why are humans worse beasts than anything else that can think? I don't believe we should harm other species just for their resources, but why are humans so much more horrible and undeserving of life than any other species? Greed and violence are a part of life. Whether people like to think of humans as animals or not, we are still animals. Greed and violence would be developed by any species if they evolve to a certain point. We can think, but we are living beings. We are from perfect, but why are we so undeserving of life when no species is any better than we are?

Perhaps I used the wrong term, but everything that has happened or will ever happen in the universe is completely natural. This includes things like serial killers. It is survival of the fittest however, if you read my last post (the one I edited) it should make more sense.

What if our survival depended on their deaths? You would condemn our species for that of another? One that you have no part of?

Yes. Genocide is wrong, no matter the circumstances.

That's exactly what I'm wondering. Would some people choose to fight for their own species or for another species? Perhaps members of the other species think the same way. If we started the war on that species, than I would be neutral on this topic. If they were attacking us, for some reason, I would like to think humans would support humans.

Preserving humanity is great, but not if you end up losing your humanity in the process.





Incidentally, paraphrasing commander Shepard is my hobby.

I can see where you're coming from, and I hope I didn't come off as attacking your statement. I just get really excited.... (sorry)

Either way (although I know this shouldn't be a morality debate) I just want to clarify that in some ways it won't be survival of the fittest. Not to take a movie too seriously, but let's take District 9 (the film) as an example. The aliens who cohabited in South Africa were intellectually, anatomically, and technologically much more advanced than humans. If we are applying survival of the fittest, then in that movie, the whole planet would've been wrought in destruction due to THEIR hand. It all depends on intent. A much superior civilization will lose if ti chooses not to fight back, and I think, in essence, this is the problem with society thinking they can use Darwinism as an excuse to expand and conquer. Since i am very into morality and epistemology, I try to veer off of any decision which may plant the very seeds of our own destruction, and messing with other life forms for purely selfish reasons could be the catalyst for such an event (such as our severe exploitation of the earth...)

On the other hand, I can see the whole "put your own family rather than the neighbors'" bomb shelter anology. Although to paint a better picture, it would be "steal the neighbor's bomb shelter and put your family in it" if we are discussing the debate still (and not human instinct).

If we can find a planet that can sustain millions of lives that is empty of life EXCEPT for water and vegetation, then let's go! But of course this is an impossible scenario. Where there is water, there are bound to be anything from microbes to sophisticated life forms that we are displacing. Personally, if the world ends and we did not expand through space, I say it is the end of our race. Some species are meant to be instinct one day as in the cycle of life and death. (now THAT is the works of natural selection/true survival of the fittest)

/edit


i think you're beginning to sound a bit like nietzche

You are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor! Take her away!!

Alternatively, the death of humanity would result in the birth of mankind.

Edit@Lcars: In war, only the victor is right. The alien race, were they to lose, would fill the role of "wrong" or "incorrect"

I reckon most people would fight for the human side, because they don't know any better.

Alot of people would fight for the human side out of an instinctual hatred of anything that is alien to them (pun intended).

The small minority would side with whoever is in the right, because they are clever enough to disregard the first two lines of thinking.

If you kill me, it will only steel my Fedaykin's resolve.

I just re-posted what I said before, felt it needed to be said again.

It doesn't matter how intelligent you are, you will always want your species, or sub-genre of species to be dominant. It goes back to the very most basic of instincts. If you had to choose between your family or your neighbors to enter a bomb-shelter, who would you choose? Multiply that to an entire race, it's still the exact same concept.

It's no different than one insect being introduced to another, and the former killing off the latter and using it's resources. If humans needed to completely eradicate an intelligent alien life form to ensure our survival, or to significantly advance our species, I wouldn't blink an eye, seeing as I'm human.

Or maybe because I don't want our species to die out. I'd kill alien babies if our survival depended on it.

Define humanity. Really it kind of like treason not to be pro-human. Preserving life is great and all, but I think we should put our needs above others. Especially if its not an intelligent species. When you say "we shouldn't interfere with how that planet develops and let them progress." really think about it, it may be a different planet but we are all living, and all in the same galaxy, and all in the same universe. Interaction is bound to happen and when it does, it will either be cooperation or domination. Basically the same thing as (but on a smaller scale) animals from different continents coming in contact with each other. Some will cooperate with each other, while others will compete and one will lose. But really its all natural, thats how evolution works, its natural selection. I see humans as any other organism in terms of nature (aside from views backed up by my religion).

More like the survival of greedy liars who'll shake your hand while sharpening the dagger to backstab you with when the time is right.

Isn't that what I said? But are we really going to make the same horrible decisions twice?

Pretty much, but hopefully humanity has learnt from the mistakes of the Age of Imperialism and Colonization, which I realize probably sounds quite redundant.

I hope you are aware that any intelligent life elsewhere will probably have such emotions as "greed" as well.... the only reason we seem so bad is because we are the only intelligent life on our planet.

all the more reason not to think we can just go in there and conquer a whole new life form to take its ecosystem for ourselves. Anything can be out there. Life is miraculous in that the truth is something we will never be able to imagine.

Either way it'll go like this:

They have more advanced technology:
"Wanna be friends."

We have the superior technology:
"Get out of our way or we'll kill you."

Same technology:
"Go to war."