Knowledge is meant to be learned. Anything can be figured out, given enough time. The mystery behind the laws of physics and reality only have to be discovered, which can't be done if we stay on this one planet and just mind our own business in dealing with the universe.

That's assuming they're a cordial specie


I'm not saying stick to our lilliputian bubble. Why can't humans for once be diplomatic and have a symbiotic relationship with another set of creatures? Why do we have to conquer in order to learn from them? To unravel a mystery does not mean to make it your own. By keeping to our bubble we are just like the people who convinced everyone else that the world is flat. However, to come in another planet or ecosystem and think we can take it for ourselves and displacing the alien lifeforms altogether is no different from a genocide. If we are truly products of erudition and science, then we must observe and learn. Not study with guns in our hands and nuclear warheads as a means to an end.

Technically it would be xenocide. Genocide can only occur within a species. Humans are not diplomatic creatures. We fabricate enemies if we have no natural ones. We see the world in terms of countries, us and them, we define ourselves by our race, religion, all of that nonsense. Underneath these reasons, we are all human, the single binding quality all of us share. Aliens, by common definition, are not human. They have NO link to us, no common ideal or value. If we, as a species, cannot eliminate our rage, I would rather see it inflicted on other organisms, rather than at each other. I see it as justified if our success meant the failure of others.

semantics semantics. So xenocide is better than genocide? So many people, especially the media, paint the human race as a bellicose specie willing to destroy others for survival. I don't always see it as that. If we somehow lose society and people go back to primitive instincts for survival, when we hurt each other, it is for our survival and not for the sadistic act of it (unless some greedy person wants to horde people under his will for his own benefit). Simultaneously, we won't go out of our way to exterminate every other threat. I've quoted someone before in this thread, "animals kill, man murders." But yet are we not animals? And let's say i DO agree with you that we have a proclivity for destruction, but it does not make it anymore right. To agree that we are meant for command and conquering is to agree that the alcoholic is meant to be psychologically debilitated and intoxicated for the rest of his/her life. We can't help ourselves, so we can just go in and bust in there and take command, right?

I still don't understand why we can just approach under a scientific lens, a love for learning. Why must we approach it that way? We may be violent creatures at times, but in no way are we the creatures of violence. And you can tell that this whole destructive instinct thing is not universal for humans (negating its function as an instinct) considering that there are culture groups who respect their limitations and find a modicum of morals that allow them to survive without exploitation (druidic peoples/groups, bush people, some native american tribes, etc)

I agree that a scientific and diplomatic approach should be taken if we encounter alien life. My question is how will we negotiate with beings who do not communicate as we do? I doubt they will recognize our vocal, facial, or bodily communication signals, so how are we to communicate with them? They may not even have any senses similar to our own. What if they perceive us as threats, we can't communicate with them, and they attack us? Under those circumstances, I would support defending ourselves, but if that situation can be avoided, I believe we should have peaceful communications with that alien life. However, like I asked, how would we communicate with intelligent alien life? If our survival doesn't depend on the destruction of that alien life and they are not hostile, then I only support peaceful communication(if we can communicate at all). If our survival depends on their eradication and if they are peaceful, I wouldn't be able to make a choice. If our survival depends on their eradication because/and they are hostile, then I would support defending ourselves. If our survival doesn't depend on their eradication but they are hostile, then I wouldn't be able to make a choice. Still, I am wondering how we would be able to communicate with those beings. Any ideas, anyone?

All of those groups loved this planet, and took a nature-oriented, passive approach to life. What sorts of technological advancements had those groups achieved during their time, as opposed to the groups that displaced them? (Edit: Had to make it past-tense)

The love of progress, constantly questioning and having an inquisitive nature, cannot co-exist with mere satisfaction in what you have, or superstitions and animism. Without the drive for more, we would still be little more than mindless beasts, using primitive farming techniques in little communities because of the attitude that it's good enough, so you shouldn't try for more. Sure, your knowledge of your own little world would be quite adept, but that's the limit of what you know, and a terrible waste of human potential. If you are happy to live in ignorance, with self-imposed limitations, then by all means I cannot stop you from chaining yourself to obsolete ideals. But technology cannot advance on good attitudes alone. That requires resources, time, and motivation, the likes of which are not available on this single planet.

Progress is a two-sided coin, but that is still better than no coin at all.

That was then, we shouldn't be making the mistakes of our ancestors.

What mistakes would those be?

I haven't really the info on how we help the pandas (Barry White tapes playing in the bamboo forest to set the mood?)...but I'm very dubious if the captain Kirk (or any other sci-fi captain, really) approach to communicating by 'body language' with http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GreenSkinnedSPaceBabe is going to work out. Even from a voyeur's point of view, heh. Some military brass bound to spoil the fun for the rest of us. I'd be all for making the diplomatic approach, but I doubt the people in charge by then are any more wiser than the people in charge nowadays...and it's likely we'll still be as fractured as a people as we are today. I'll be the dubious git and retain my Richard Grey-ish view on humanity for now. ^_^

I think it all depends on if they taste good.
Ewoke steak anyone?

There is nothing wrong with making contact with alien life if we find it in our solar system. It's not going to be intelligent life. Maybe microbes, at least in this solar system, though I think that's fairly unlikely.

As far as danger goes, alien microbes would likely not be able to really do much damage to us. It takes a lot of evolution to be able to properly hijack the body's systems to hurt us/cause disease. The body would probably by a hostile environment. Warm, different pH. The only real danger would be actual chemicals excreted by organisms.

I dont know where the other quotes wen but in no way, was what happened to the natives survival of the fittest, it was all that is bad in mankind greed, betrayal and murder etc, the natives didnt stand a chance.
by your logic if I show up at your house with about 20 guys, all have guns and we killed you it would be survival of the fittest...yeah why do I think you would see things differently if that happened ?
You wont always choose your species, I would choose that parts that are good traits, e.g if I had a family and my son was a drug dealer, guess who will be outside the bomb shelter. As a result I could let the law abiding neighbour in.

I dont want us to die ( I couldnt care less, all die eventually) I just want us to be isolated, because if we spread out we only create more problems and spread them around, instead of having 10 problems in one place you have 2 problems in 10 places. If we are stuck here we cant effect others who could learn to be peaceful. Yes nature is violent, and humanity will never be peaceful, however if there was another world where the society was pacafist then no one would ffight, pacafism only works if everyone is pacafist, so here its not gonna happen. It could if there were a world where originally it was something that spread to all corners of the world, but today there are to many different ideas established to deep into society.


No its not, people think, they can control what happens, so if someone kills someone else for whatever reason it is not natural death, its murder, manslaughter, self defence, etc.
By your logic if there were a nuclear war, it would be natural, most would say it was humanity [censored] around to much and screwing itself over.


Insects dont have the ability to think like us, we have free will, morality and the abilty to make a decision and predict what the result is, animals use instinct, you cant compare a humans choice to an insect.
Insects cant negotiate, they cant find another resource, they compete and fight, thats all they can do.


And it can learn to be peaceful and good, aslong as it learns of these things early on, leave it to late and it would be pretty much impossible.

Very unlikely....

Archaebacteria can live in some weird places. Who knows. But im not sure if for one there is life out there, and if there is I doubt we will ever come in contact with it. Im hopeful but im being realistic.

Haaving read this thread, I must say I wouldn't trust any of you to carry humainty to the stars. The general consensus seems to be to annihiliate all of human culture and put us under the heel of some spacefaring oligarchs. To hell with that. I'd sooner humanity were destroyed than forget what humanity was in the first place.

Imagine if we met an alien race with the technology to cure any ill, drugs to replicate any feeling, machines to do whatever we wanted them to. All of our lives would changein an instant. A massive commercialised mess where our own cultures are forgotten.

That's what would happen if world peace ever happened. To stop being such clannish creatures, we would literally need to become one giant, homogenized culture. Our allegiance is to our pack, and that's it. Not our country, not our species, not our planet. Our pack.

Soldiers in war are probably the best example. Their allegiance is to their section or platoon. Not their country. It might extend to the entire outfit they are in. My grandfather told me the same thing when I was younger. He was in the First Special Service Force, so some of the men he fought with were American, rather than Canadian, but it didn't matter. In the end, they were all Black Devils and that was all that mattered. They were fighting for each other, for their friends beside them.

That's true on a larger scale, as well. We are loyal to our pack. Whether that be our city, our country, or our culture. I'm quite positive no one here can say with 100% honesty that they are loyal to the entire human species rather than their pack.

I really think that as of right now, our species is not fit to explore the Galaxy. It's a good thing we don't have the tech to do so. We're far too clannish. The problem is that it's in our blood. We are pack hunters.

What's nice about colonizing space is that "clans" can just say screw this, and move somewhere else. Space is, for all intents and purposes, limitless. With the right technology, every planet is habitable, and you could even construct a space station, or get a ship and live on it. The vastness of space allows people to just... move on. We could vote with our feet again, so to speak.

I'd prefer if those cultureless spacers went elsewhere and left the humans to it on earth.

This reminds of the Chapterhouse: Dune, where it is revealed the Jews got tired of all the pogroms and had their own little Scattering, thousands of years before everyone else did. They have entire systems to themselves because they just up and left.

You make a good point. With space travel, we could become even more clannish and never have to see each other again.

Its plausible, that instead of uniting, we simply end up fighting wars on a bigger scale. How long until some mining colony on Mars wants independence, and suddenly we're fighting interplanetary wars? You'd have to keep the colonies under martial law if you wanted any unity.

If we wanted unity, we'd probably have to be under some sort of military government.

I say, when it comes to time to spread out to the stars, we become feudal again. Or feudal-ish.

All hail the fascist space-oligarchs! Wow, the future's looking bleak, isn't it? Unless we acheive trancendence and leave our mortal forms, pretty much every avenue looks like history is either repeating itself or taking the piss.

I think a major, often overlooked problem would be microscopic pathogens, and the fact that organisms on either side would not likely have any resistance to such pathogens a different planet or moon.

That's dependent on these pathogens having the proper keys to infect our cells in the first place.

Eh, I'll just quote what I said before.



Seriously, it takes incredible amounts of time evolving with an organism to be able to properly attack it, at least for microbes. Think of it in terms of alien life coming to EARTH and how our disease would affect them. Viruses would be right out, since they attack cells with DNA. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that aliens would have something compatible, even if they had genetic material in the sense that we know it. Bacteria are adapted to very specific conditions in the body. They often rely on excretions that cause vasodilation/constriction to built up and then release colonies. These chemicals wouldn't work on other body systems. The thing with the most potential to harm alien life would be prions, though that's still very unlikely since they work on specific proteins which are massive, complex molecules that probably would show up in different forms than in Earth life.