PDA

View Full Version : Tables turned on Humanity


True_Avery
03-07-2008, 05:40 AM
Lets say something evolves to get to a higher status than humans. If you don't believe in that, then lets say Aliens appear who are stronger than humans. If not even that, then lets say demons or angels appear who are stronger than humans.

Take a pick or make one up, but it all leads to the same question:

How would you convince advanced Aliens that it was morally wrong to kill humans?

Lets look at a few things:
-We will hunt on a full stomach to get a trophy.
-We will mass slaughter animals for food.
-We will gas and trap bugs and critters in our houses to clean up.
-We will destroy ecosystems and species to further our own aims.
-We are seemingly at the top, so even many of our religions have put us above animals.

Thats just how humans work. Now, what if the tables we seemingly controlled were turned on us? Aliens come out of the sky, and see us as just another rat in the attic. Just another spider on the wall. Just another animal worth hunting and/or eating. They seemingly care as much about us as we care about the random ants we happen to step on while walking down the street.

These Aliens or whatever are sentient. They can, for the sake of argument, communicate with us. They may, or may not have already killed humans with as much care and thought as someone ordering a steak. They choose to talk to you.

How would you convince advanced "unsympathetic" Aliens that it was morally wrong to kill humans?
Would you risk using a human religion? Would you explain natural rights? Would you tell them that they would have no right too? Would you explain that it was immoral to kill things?


"I'll just fight back with my nukes!" Is not an option. For the sake of argument, these Aliens make our nukes look like water droplets. Fighting back is not an option at all. If it must be done, all military facilities on earth have been destroyed or are being held by the invaders.

You have this chance to save yourself and possibly humanity, otherwise you will be killed with as much sympathy as an exterminator spraying roaches.

Pho3nix
03-07-2008, 05:48 AM
I would probably join sides with the Aliens.

Can't think of a single reason why it would be morally wrong for them to kill us.

mur'phon
03-07-2008, 06:01 AM
:wstupid:

Sabretooth
03-07-2008, 06:49 AM
I'd probably show them all the human achievements we have made, such as religion, reaching moon, scientific and philosophical advancement and what-not. Sooner or later, they will think we are real cute snap photos of us and post it on their intarwebs with funny captions like "Invisible Bike!" or "I can haz cheezburger?"

On the contrary, if these aliens are so very advanced and of a liberal, understanding mind, we'd proclaim stuff like our right to freedom and independence and how we would like to negotiate trade prospects with foreign planets as opposed to war. If they value democracy and liberalism as much as we do, they will let us be.

Naw.

Ray Jones
03-07-2008, 08:45 AM
Lets look at a few things:
-We will hunt on a full stomach to get a trophy.
-We will mass slaughter animals for food.
-We will gas and trap bugs and critters in our houses to clean up.
-We will destroy ecosystems and species to further our own aims.
-We are seemingly at the top, so even many of our religions have put us above animals.I think there are enough humans on this planet who do not fit in any of those "classifications", including me. I fail to see why people constantly whine about these issues, but they do a **** about it.

They seemingly care as much about us as we care about the random ants we happen to step on while walking down the street.I do care.

Would you risk using a human religion?No. Would that be of help anyway?

Would you explain natural rights?What are natural rights?

Would you tell them that they would have no right too?What right?

Would you explain that it was immoral to kill things?Is it really immoral to kill things? Among all species out there, killing happens all the time, for several reasons. And I'd say most of them do not touch the concept of immorality in any way.


However, my argumentation would be quite simple:

It is "wrong" to kill humans, just as it is "wrong" to kill any other form of life. However, most forms of life need to kill life in order to survive. So, as long as they are here to eat us, there is generally nothing wrong with it. Additionally, they wouldn't do any better than humans do if they'd kill us just because we kill other lifeforms "for the fun of it" and so on.


:dozey:

Anyway, one would assume that a species able to travel space over far distances would know all that on their own.

Plus, I can hardly imagine to travel through space to some unknown planet and eat or kill all the species I meet there, let alone the fact than when I am able to do long time space travel, I most probably have solved the problem of never dwindling food supply long, long ago. And I think I would not be interested in resources, or occupation of land, either. Because I obviously already have enough resources and better living condition (for my species) on the ship than on any random planet.

Not gonna say your scenario has flaws, but there are some. :D

Bee Hoon
03-07-2008, 09:24 AM
Ah, I'd tell them that humans will kill themselves off unless something drastic happens to turn every single one of us around. So no need to bother:p

In any case, it seems to me that the only argument which can be made for the humans is that not everyone falls into all those categories, as Ray Jones has pointed out. Then what would the aliens do? Wipe everyone out for the sins of some? If so...that would pretty much put them on the same level as us.

Arcesious
03-07-2008, 10:11 AM
If that happened, I'd ally with the aliens, and when I have the chance, double cross in some great enough way that I could save all mankind.

Jvstice
03-07-2008, 01:18 PM
I'd point out about killing being wrong when unnecessary, but that all higher life forms have to kill for food at least. Then I'd argue based on the same arguements we use for and against animal experimentation within the scientific community.

1) Is there a tangible benefit that comes from the harm that is done, and is the harm necessary?

2) Is there a way to minimize the pain and suffering inflicted? Example: We do little experimentation with chimps because their larger brains and more advanced nervous system means they can feel more pain. Instead we use many rats early on in medical experiments, then dogs, only then chimps. After that humans. If aliens are doing these attrocities on humans either for food or medical experimentation, they'd probably see the use of animals as beneficial as saving resources for the long term even if they can't be brought to a point of empathy or sympathy, though I wouldnt' hesitate to try to get them to sympathize either. But at the least I'd want them looking at us with an enlightened self interest point of view, and not as something to be wiped out.

Web Rider
03-07-2008, 02:07 PM
On the contrary, if these aliens are so very advanced and of a liberal, understanding mind, we'd proclaim stuff like our right to freedom and independence and how we would like to negotiate trade prospects with foreign planets as opposed to war. If they value democracy and liberalism as much as we do, they will let us be.

I think this is an important note. If these aliens are so liberally advanced, it's likly they won't go around treating us like animals. If they aren't, they I honestly doubt they'd care what I have to say about humanities reasons for living.
however, in the spirit of the topic:
-We will hunt on a full stomach to get a trophy.
You might, he might, I don't. And I honestly don't care if the aliens want to hunt those people. IF I ever do hunt, I will use everything I can from my kill, none of this stuffed and mounted BS.
-We will mass slaughter animals for food.
You assume that the aliens are a animal-form of life. Perhaps they are plant based. What's my point? Only that a race needs to survive somehow, if they require human meat to live, well, I'd wonder how they managed to live so long.
-We will gas and trap bugs and critters in our houses to clean up.
I think you're getting a little strong on this "we".
-We will destroy ecosystems and species to further our own aims.
yup, pretty darn strong on "we".
-We are seemingly at the top, so even many of our religions have put us above animals.
which I'm not part of so I don't really care what religion thinks.

JediMaster12
03-07-2008, 04:07 PM
It is "wrong" to kill humans, just as it is "wrong" to kill any other form of life. However, most forms of life need to kill life in order to survive. So, as long as they are here to eat us, there is generally nothing wrong with it. Additionally, they wouldn't do any better than humans do if they'd kill us just because we kill other lifeforms "for the fun of it" and so on.
First off that does sound like an encouragement for them to actually kill us. Yes all life must compete to flourish, blah, blah...food chain. But why state the obvious? Of course it is unwise to assume that they know something basic like this but then more likely they would.

This sounds a bit like a Planet of the Apes situation. The question I ask True Avery is why say there is no way to fight back. You'd be suprised at how fast people learn to use what is around them. Heck I learned how to make a bone awl that is strong enough to give a good stab into the kidney if you need to kill something. What I am saying is that it is a bit of a stretch to assume that there wouldn't be a means to fight back. Three strikes and you aren't out. There is always one more thing you can do in certain situations.

Ray Jones
03-07-2008, 04:19 PM
First off that does sound like an encouragement for them to actually kill us.Does it? It doesn't. Then again, why not?

Yes all life must compete to flourish, blah, blah...food chain.No. It must not. It does.

But why state the obvious?Because Avery asked what "my" arguments would sound like.

Of course it is unwise to assume that they know something basic like this but then more likely they would.Hence why I said, "one would assume that a species able to travel space over far distances would know all that on their own."

PoiuyWired
03-07-2008, 05:40 PM
Survival of the fittist... I mean, if we are weaker we lose the game.

Now it doesn't mean that we can't survive via sneaking around their world though, them stupid roaches have been doing it for eternalty.

Now think about humans with the ability of space travel meeting a habitable planet with some primitive sentient species. Game over for them. Why should we be anything different?

Totenkopf
03-07-2008, 09:58 PM
Let's not forget, advanced does not necessarily mean enlightened. Compared to our ancestors even only 13 centuries ago, we're very advanced. Yet look how little people have changed in temperment. The ability to travel throughout space does not axiomatically mean that said lifeforms would be remotely humane.

Ctrl Alt Del
03-07-2008, 10:42 PM
Using the "food chain" or a moralist or less biological based excuse to avoid mass genocide of us, would be out of question. After all, if it's wrong to kill any life-form, we're serial-killers.

My arguments would be based on our sentience: We are self-aware, the creatures we squash every day (accidentally or not), aren't.

I think there are enough humans on this planet who do not fit in any of those "classifications", including me. I fail to see why people constantly whine about these issues, but they do a **** about it.
I'm sure the aliens would be kind enough to make a deep investigation on 6 billion humans and determine who does X and who does Y. True_Avery's point, I assume, was to express that the aliens would judge us not personally, but as a race.
Let's not forget, advanced does not necessarily mean enlightened.
That does depend. There's a cooperation level that's necessary to develop this kind of technology. On the event that they're like Goa'ulds, that just strips a foreign race that actually had that cooperation level, then we can assume that the same requirement goes on understanding the alien tech on their own.

*Don*
03-07-2008, 11:43 PM
I would sit back and pray for a War of the Worlds solution (good ol' microscopic bacteria).

Totenkopf
03-08-2008, 04:44 AM
That does depend. There's a cooperation level that's necessary to develop this kind of technology. On the event that they're like Goa'ulds, that just strips a foreign race that actually had that cooperation level, then we can assume that the same requirement goes on understanding the alien tech on their own.

Remember, though, cooperation in the vein of self interest does not equal a humanitarian disposition. Frankly, a society doesn't have to be humanitarian to advance technologically.

Ray Jones
03-08-2008, 06:07 AM
Using the "food chain" or a moralist or less biological based excuse to avoid mass genocide of us, would be out of question. After all, if it's wrong to kill any life-form, we're serial-killers.And if it'd be right, we'd not be serial killers? Hm. I thought it's named serial killer because of kills in series, not due to wrong or right.

My arguments would be based on our sentience: We are self-aware, the creatures we squash every day (accidentally or not), aren't.Of course that kind of attitude shows clearly how we are the ones worth to survive. Also, it is pretty sure that some animals at least show signs of self-awareness.

That does depend. There's a cooperation level that's necessary to develop this kind of technology. On the event that they're like Goa'ulds, that just strips a foreign race that actually had that cooperation level, then we can assume that the same requirement goes on understanding the alien tech on their own.While Goaul'd are human fiction, real aliens are not. But in case real aliens travel big distances to come here to conquer and destroy us, I doubt they will change mind, no matter what we say.

Ctrl Alt Del
03-08-2008, 08:47 AM
Frankly, a society doesn't have to be humanitarian to advance technologically.
Point taken. But I didn't ever said that this "cooperation" couldn't be forced on them... assuming the aliens will have greed and other human traits such as.

True_Avery
03-08-2008, 07:18 PM
Wow, mot of you completely missed what I was trying to do with this thread. I generalized humanity for a -reason-. The point was that you counter arguments like that by giving examples or reasons why we are a species worth having around.

The point is that this Alien race would view us as simply animals.

True_Avery's point, I assume, was to express that the aliens would judge us not personally, but as a race.
Thank you for getting the picture.

Let's not forget, advanced does not necessarily mean enlightened. Compared to our ancestors even only 13 centuries ago, we're very advanced. Yet look how little people have changed in temperment. The ability to travel throughout space does not axiomatically mean that said lifeforms would be remotely humane.
Thank you.

I do care.
Then you are a very small amount of the population. I don't know about you, but I doubt many people go home by the end of the day, sad that they may have harmed or killed an ant accidentally by walking.

No. Would that be of help anyway?
I'm asking you. I was merely using an example of an argument that could be used.

What are natural rights?
I don't know, you tell me. I believe it is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

What right?
I don't know. You tell me. I'm the one thats asking.

Is it really immoral to kill things? Among all species out there, killing happens all the time, for several reasons. And I'd say most of them do not touch the concept of immorality in any way.
I'm asking you if you would use the argument. Again, you have completely failed to understand what I was trying to do. I was listing things that could be used, not things I was using.

Plus, I can hardly imagine to travel through space to some unknown planet and eat or kill all the species I meet there, let alone the fact than when I am able to do long time space travel, I most probably have solved the problem of never dwindling food supply long, long ago. And I think I would not be interested in resources, or occupation of land, either. Because I obviously already have enough resources and better living condition (for my species) on the ship than on any random planet.
Whatever.

Not gonna say your scenario has flaws, but there are some.
My scenarios were examples to use. I wasn't using them specifically. Congrats on completely missing the point.

You might, he might, I don't. And I honestly don't care if the aliens want to hunt those people. IF I ever do hunt, I will use everything I can from my kill, none of this stuffed and mounted BS.
I was generalizing, but I think you know that. I somehow think you'd care if they started hunting you.

You assume that the aliens are a animal-form of life. Perhaps they are plant based. What's my point? Only that a race needs to survive somehow, if they require human meat to live, well, I'd wonder how they managed to live so long.
I didn't assume anything about them other than they are aliens coming here to either kill us or negotiate.

I think you're getting a little strong on this "we".
Its called generalizing, and if the aliens do happen to be like humans then they will do it.

yup, pretty darn strong on "we".
^

which I'm not part of so I don't really care what religion thinks.
Good for you. I wasn't asking that at all. I was giving a example of what you could use in your argument.

This sounds a bit like a Planet of the Apes situation. The question I ask True Avery is why say there is no way to fight back. You'd be suprised at how fast people learn to use what is around them. Heck I learned how to make a bone awl that is strong enough to give a good stab into the kidney if you need to kill something. What I am saying is that it is a bit of a stretch to assume that there wouldn't be a means to fight back. Three strikes and you aren't out. There is always one more thing you can do in certain situations.
I was waiting for someone to pull the Independence Day card. I don't care how many Will Smiths the Native Americans have, if you put them up against the United States Army they would lose. If you put Africa against the UN in full war, Africa would lose. If you put a full grown bodybuilder against a 2 year old, the 2 year old would lose.

This is not two relatively similar civilizations fighting each other in a Hollywood film. This is one far, far more advance civilization going against a much weaker one. There is no vent for Luke to shoot two missiles into. There is no huge gaping weak point for an old man to fly his plane into. There is no music to make their heads explode.

Bleh, never mind. This was a pointless thread from the start. People seemed far more interested in ripping my post apart instead of focusing on the point it was trying to make. Now I remember why I hate posting in this damn place.

Totenkopf
03-08-2008, 08:11 PM
Seems to me the big problem becomes determining just how alien these beings are. How do they perceive the concept of morality? Are they so far advanced mentally, technologically, socially, ad nauseam that we are little more than ants to them? If they are sociopathic by human standards, is there even a point in trying?

True_Avery
03-08-2008, 08:15 PM
Seems to me the big problem becomes determining just how alien these beings are. How do they perceive the concept of morality? Are they so far advanced mentally, technologically, socially, ad nauseam that we are little more than ants to them? If they are sociopathic by human standards, is there even a point in trying?
Yeah, I can see your point there. I'd like to make a standard for sake of argument, but I wouldn't personally know where to start.

Samuel Dravis
03-08-2008, 08:41 PM
How to stop aliens from killing us...

First, of course, is simply to stay out of their way. It's unlikely they would go out of their way (wasting resources) to kill people unless they had a reason to.

However, if that is not possible, I imagine that we'd need to make ourselves valuable in some way - and by that I mean their definition of valuable. What kind of common ground do we have with these aliens? For example, if the aliens did not have eyes, we could not show them visual art as something interesting enough to warrant keeping us around -- so that's right out.

Essentially, we'd need to find out what they're interested in, what kind of resources they want (because they probably DO want something, if they came here), etc. After we've found these things out, we'd have to make ourselves interesting or useful in some way. The goal is to make them say things like "Isn't that cool how those humans make pyramids all by themselves?" in the same way that we find other animals and plants interesting and valuable because of their particular properties.

I think this kind of thing would give us something to negotiate with - show the aliens that we're valuable, within their framework. To do otherwise would be like saying of chess "But don't you agree that the queen is valuable?" -- when the other person thinks chess is stupid or uninteresting and just ignores you.

Totenkopf
03-08-2008, 08:58 PM
Yes, I agree this would give them a utilitarian reason not to get rid of all of us. But is that the same thing as explaining why it's immoral to kill us rather than inconvenient (afterall, they'd existed up to the point they discovered us and presented us with our theorhetical dilemma).

Samuel Dravis
03-08-2008, 09:15 PM
Yes, I agree this would give them a utilitarian reason not to get rid of all of us. But is that the same thing as explaining why it's immoral to kill us rather than inconvenient (afterall, they'd existed up to the point they discovered us and presented us with our theorhetical dilemma).Again, you'd have to appeal to their morals, whatever they are. If they behave a certain way with respect to other races (not sure how you'd find out, but for the sake of argument), you could remind them that treating other races well is something they usually do, and why should they be inconsistent in our case?

But as for appeals to our morality: I think that is just as useless as trying to sell the value of visual art to the blind (although they might decide it is useful in some other way, i.e, your reactions to such art might be interesting to them).

If they simply don't value our kind of morals then there is no moral argument that would make them stop. This is true even within the human race, and I doubt that there would be any difference with aliens in that respect.

Arcesious
03-08-2008, 09:17 PM
If the aliens were to use us as slaves, if I had the resources I would attempt to ally with them, infiltrate them, and double cross them, despite the risk.

Ctrl Alt Del
03-08-2008, 09:37 PM
If the aliens were to use us as slaves, if I had the resources I would attempt to ally with them, infiltrate them, and double cross them, despite the risk.
As a slave, how would you manage to infiltrate them?

Totenkopf
03-08-2008, 10:10 PM
Again, you'd have to appeal to their morals, whatever they are. If they behave a certain way with respect to other races (not sure how you'd find out, but for the sake of argument), you could remind them that treating other races well is something they usually do, and why should they be inconsistent in our case?

But as for appeals to our morality: I think that is just as useless as trying to sell the value of visual art to the blind (although they might decide it is useful in some other way, i.e, your reactions to such art might be interesting to them).

If they simply don't value our kind of morals then there is no moral argument that would make them stop. This is true even within the human race, and I doubt that there would be any difference with aliens in that respect.

I don't disagree, just your previous argument seemed aimed at positing an argument of demonstrating that killing people might be counterproductive from the standpoint of their utility, not so much their inherent worth as individuals. But, yes, unless you can give them a reason within the context of their own values, you're probably sool (s*** out of luck).

PoiuyWired
03-09-2008, 06:21 AM
Well, basically it boils down to appealing to the superior species that we have better use alive than dead. Though I think sometimes going out would a bang may be a better option. basically you make them feel that invading earth is not a good idea as you make the planet undesirable. To put it simply you use a mix of scorch earth tactics, terrorist attacks and a whole bunch of similar tricks to make taking over the planet both too costly and undesirable. That means, trash what they would want, make yourself undesirable to fight with using dirty gurrila/terrorist tactics, and creat generay constant annoyance to induce stress on their whole invading structure.

Well, superior aliens have a economy too... if they found out they are losing expensive scientists by crazy savages with some old arcane explosive device with poisonous/viral stuff from time to time without being able to get any real resources out of the area, they would move on to another planet. Remember, this planet is out of nowhere, and generally aliens don't invade planets for fun. At best they are trying to select powerful warriors for their space marines.

As a slave, how would you manage to infiltrate them?
Cardboard boxes, you hide in them when they walk past you. And you se up an "underground cardboard railroad"

Totenkopf
03-09-2008, 06:34 AM
Don't forget something. If a race of powerful aliens were to come to earth at this point in mankind's development.......we'd pretty much be screwed if they decided to annihilate us as unworthy. They wouldn't even need to come to the surface. Just sit up in orbit and lob asteroids at the surface, in addition to using any onboard weapons of their own. Even if they wished to preserve the surface of the planet, they could resort to developing a virus to wipe out humanity and return at a later date.

Pho3nix
03-09-2008, 01:34 PM
This thread reminded me of a lulz-worthy PBF comic.

http://pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF162-Executive_Decision.jpg

Totenkopf
03-09-2008, 03:42 PM
OMG! the aliens will be from PETA. :D

Ray Jones
03-09-2008, 05:09 PM
Wow, mot of you completely missed what I was trying to do with this thread. I generalized humanity for a -reason-. The point was that you counter arguments like that by giving examples or reasons why we are a species worth having around.Maybe if you had made it more explicit, less people had missed that point.

The point is that this Alien race would view us as simply animals.Where does it say so? You did not specify that as well.

Then you are a very small amount of the population. I don't know about you, but I doubt many people go home by the end of the day, sad that they may have harmed or killed an ant accidentally by walking.There is no reason to be sad because I *may* have killed an animal. By I care I mean more I *don't* step onto that ant when I notice I that I would. :)

I don't know, you tell me. I believe it is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.No. When you ask "would you explain natural rights", you must at least define what natural rights are, so we'd have a common ground for a possible answer, which otherwise becomes pointless.

I don't know. You tell me. I'm the one thats asking.Nope. See above.

I'm asking you if you would use the argument. Again, you have completely failed to understand what I was trying to do. I was listing things that could be used, not things I was using.But you did not label them as such,

My scenarios were examples to use. I wasn't using them specifically. Congrats on completely missing the point.Thank you and ditto.


Bleh, never mind. This was a pointless thread from the start. People seemed far more interested in ripping my post apart instead of focusing on the point it was trying to make.But you made no specific point in your first post. Instead you tell us now we got it wrong.

Now I remember why I hate posting in this damn place.So what did you expect? Cookies? XD

Ctrl Alt Del
03-09-2008, 08:26 PM
OMG! the aliens will be from PETA. :D
Quite frankly, if it were I, I would take Earth out too.

Arcesious
03-09-2008, 08:38 PM
*reads the posted comic* If it were me, I'd quickly grab the pictures of the much 'cuter' earth puppies, and save Earth.

urluckyday
03-09-2008, 08:48 PM
I'd try and fight as many aliens off as possible and die fighting for the human race...like in "Independence Day." That'd be the best way to go...

Jae Onasi
03-10-2008, 01:30 AM
Well, if they're into morality and thus are willing to spare the lives of humanity, since it shows a significant degree of sentience and has a right to live, then we might have a chance. Otherwise, we'll be saying hello to Mr. Flyswatter an awful lot.

Corinthian
03-10-2008, 01:38 AM
I wouldn't convince them it was morally wrong to kill us. They're either going to tell us that, although we are primitive, we have great potential, or they'll come into orbit and start shooting. Either way, our best bet is to break out the M-16s and open fire on sight, hitting any craft that haven't lowered their boarding ramps with fusion nukes and salvaging the rest, eventually reverse-engineering them so that we can become a mighty spacefaring King-Race.

Jae Onasi
03-10-2008, 01:49 AM
Kinda like that race in Star Trek TNG that got space travel before their time, talking to LaForge: "You are smart. You make things go."

Totenkopf
03-10-2008, 01:56 AM
@Ray--actually, she(?) was pretty specific in the first post that it was humanity as a whole and not you as an individual. The only "you" here is the poor scmuck assigned the task of justifying humanity's intrinisic worth to "galactic flyswatters". You went off on a tangent by personalizing your own philosophical outlook vis-a-vis the 4-5 examples of human behavior mentioned in the OP. Further, the "aliens" in question were almost of the variety that "we're giving you 10 minutes to justify why we shouldn't just eliminate you" for the purposes of expediency (we don't like you/we're building an intergalactic bypass and you're in the way/we want your stuff).

Corinthian
03-10-2008, 02:38 AM
Didn't see that episode. So they were Spacefaring Cavemen, huh? Sounds like they'd have gotten along well with the Klingons.

DeadYorick
03-10-2008, 02:55 AM
Id think that humanity wouldn't give up without a fight. I think they would rather destroy themselves and take the aliens with them then be 2nd place on the food chain

Corinthian
03-10-2008, 06:11 AM
Yeah, but it wouldn't be necessary. We have nuclear weapons. Aliens never do.

Ray Jones
03-10-2008, 06:22 AM
@Ray--actually, she(?) was pretty specific in the first post that it was humanity as a whole and not you as an individual. The only "you" here is the poor scmuck assigned the task of justifying humanity's intrinisic worth to "galactic flyswatters". I recognised that. And I didn't felt addressed "personally". But that wasn't the point. The point was, it is a semi-optimal chosen generalisation to display humanity.

You went off on a tangent by personalizing your own philosophical outlook vis-a-vis the 4-5 examples of human behavior mentioned in the OP. And why shouldn't I have done this? Nowhere she said don't.

Further, the "aliens" in question were almost of the variety that "we're giving you 10 minutes to justify why we shouldn't just eliminate you" for the purposes of expediencyYes, I know that. You just don't travel billions of lightyears to (A) negotiate such things, or (B) do such things.



However, for the sake of Avery's happiness (and while we're into mere fiction): I think a good way to "convince" those aliens is like Bud "did" in the movie The Abyss.

Corinthian
03-10-2008, 06:33 AM
Ten minutes to justify why they shouldn't kill us? Alright, that's easy.

What gives them the right to decide who lives or dies? Who made them Kings of the Universe? Why are they the ones to decide our fate? Request to see the Intraspace Security Council on this. Use our veto. Attempt technobabble explanations while Riker attempts to dig up new evidence and Data overlooks the laws, searching for a loophole. Are the aliens in their proper jurisdiction? Do they have clearance from the Milky Way Galactic Authority? Is there an appeals system in place? Are the aliens willing to conduct negotiations face to face, and if so, will a 5.56mm bullet penetrate their flesh? Do they, in fact, possess the means and balls to wipe out a planet of 6.5 billion sentients, plus billions of other lifeforms? Would petitioning the Sector Group Overauthority be possible? Do they possess the same moral standards as us, and if so, then wouldn't committing such a crime without a proper due process of law be committing mass murder to an extent that would make the Nazis wince? Are we dealing with rubber foreheads or something actually alien? Does Kirk come back in time, accompanied by a posse of green alien women to save us with the power of his easily-shredded uniform? Will a well-placed Flipendo remove them from our orbital lanes? Would the Universal Council approve such an action if it were brought to their attention? Given that humanity poses no real threat without any means of FTL travel and only a mild understanding of cryogenics thus making assaults using Sleeper Ships impossible, is it really worth their effort to kill this world? Given that it is still more than possible for humanity to evolve and we only pose a threat to each other, wouldn't killing us be counterintuitive? Isn't this a violation of the Prime Directive? Would the Federation President be in favor of this action? Wouldn't it be a shame to ruin such great monuments as the Pyramids and others of the Wonders? Isn't murder wrong? Can they really justify this action as being "For the Greater Good" and if so, are they really any better than we are? If their only answer to a situation is to kill it, why were they not exterminated? Isn't this reaction a little out of proportion to the real issue? Why are they visiting Earth anyway?

Totenkopf
03-10-2008, 06:56 AM
1)I recognised that. And I didn't felt addressed "personally". But that wasn't the point. The point was, it is a semi-optimal chosen generalisation to display humanity.
2)And why shouldn't I have done this? Nowhere she said don't.

Yes, I know that. You just don't travel billions of lightyears to (A) negotiate such things, or (B) do such things.
However, for the sake of Avery's happiness (and while we're into mere fiction): I think a good way to "convince" those aliens is like Bud "did" in the movie The Abyss.

1)Well, that's the poster's right to posit their question or scenario as they wish, no?
2)change the question to be tailored to your answer, hmm.....you may have a future in politics my boy. :D Well, seriously, it's a free country and all, but why not answer the question first and then point out why you think the basic premise is flawed (though since Earth has no direct experience with alien civilizations, it's going to be hard to prove one way or the other).

Tommycat
03-10-2008, 07:46 AM
Simple answer: We'll make great pets.

Realistic answer: We may be nothing more than mere annoyances to them, but chances are we would fight them to the last. Sure some people will roll over and allow them to defeat us, but the bravest among us will not allow ourselves to be destroyed. If they look at us from our faults, then we won't have a chance. We have art. We have love. We have compassion for those that are less fortunate.

What would keep them from destroying us? That has more to do with what they are and who they are. I mean honestly they may respect our race for our hunting prowess. They may respect our race for our adaptability. They may respect us as fellow meateaters. They may respect us as soldiers. Things that some on here may find objectionable are traits that the aliens may enjoy. They may like going with us on "tribal" hunts as we enjoy going on hunts with existing tribes. Things you may see as bad may be things they respect.
Lets look at a few things:
I'll provide the corellary
We will hunt on a full stomach to get a trophy.
We are proud of our accomplishments.
We will mass slaughter animals for food.
We are efficient
We will gas and trap bugs and critters in our houses to clean up.
We adapt our environments to fit ourselves
We will destroy ecosystems and species to further our own aims.
We can reform an area to be more fit to allow us to survive
We are seemingly at the top, so even many of our religions have put us above animals.
We have made ourselves better than the rest of the animals through our adaptability. Animals that are bigger/stronger/meaner/faster are overcme by our tools.

PoiuyWired
03-10-2008, 11:36 AM
@Ray--actually, she(?) was pretty specific in the first post that it was humanity as a whole and not you as an individual. The only "you" here is the poor scmuck assigned the task of justifying humanity's intrinisic worth to "galactic flyswatters". You went off on a tangent by personalizing your own philosophical outlook vis-a-vis the 4-5 examples of human behavior mentioned in the OP. Further, the "aliens" in question were almost of the variety that "we're giving you 10 minutes to justify why we shouldn't just eliminate you" for the purposes of expediency (we don't like you/we're building an intergalactic bypass and you're in the way/we want your stuff).

Time to Hitchhike?

We don't Have to panic then.

Arcesious
03-10-2008, 02:03 PM
let's just hope we don't have to deal with aliens like in 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'...

Corinthian
03-10-2008, 09:11 PM
Hey, that wasn't their fault. The forms had just gotten tied up in interstellar mail.

Tommycat
03-10-2008, 10:47 PM
Hey, that wasn't their fault. The forms had just gotten tied up in interstellar mail.
And it's not like the plans weren't on display for several months for us to see.

Totenkopf
03-10-2008, 10:52 PM
They'd probably tell you that ignorance was no excuse and progress waits for no man(kind).

Inyri
03-10-2008, 11:21 PM
Lets say something evolves to get to a higher status than humans. If you don't believe in that, then lets say Aliens appear who are stronger than humans. If not even that, then lets say demons or angels appear who are stronger than humans.

Take a pick or make one up, but it all leads to the same question:

How would you convince advanced Aliens that it was morally wrong to kill humans?You probably wouldn't. If they're superiorly advanced to us, there's not much likelihood of successful communications (it would seem 'primitive' to them, like cats and dogs seem 'primitive' to use, although they actually have a very complex system of body language and animals probably understand us much more than we do them, because we're too arrogant to try).

Lets look at a few things:
-We will hunt on a full stomach to get a trophy.That's a silly human trait, to be certain. I always say the smarter someone is the less common sense they have; this seems to fit with the entire human race fairly well. We do some really stupid things for really stupid reasons.
-We will mass slaughter animals for food.We've lost the inefficiency of the wild because we have 'evolved' so much that we no longer need to try to be 'superior' to other creatures. Tools are really going to be the downfall of mankind; it's the same as if you let your cat out in the wild and expected it to survive out there. It couldn't, because it's spoiled. Humans are indeed spoiled as well; take away our tools and we'd probably not even match up to ground squirrels (they'd kill me for sure! Damn squirrels... :p).
-We will gas and trap bugs and critters in our houses to clean up.I don't kill bugs, but I like to think I'm smarter than the average human. I mean... what kind of silly person is scared of something a fraction of their size? Be scared of something with teeth; don't be scared of something that's not big enough to even bite through your skin.
-We will destroy ecosystems and species to further our own aims.Certainly what we do to the environment is not for our own survival. I can't imagine anyone with half a brain would suggest it would be. Human being are fully capable of surviving -- and surviving quite easily, what with our advanced adaptability and intellect -- without destroying the environment. We simply do it because it's easier, not because we need to.
-We are seemingly at the top, so even many of our religions have put us above animals.I'd say that's an illusion. We think we're at the top because frankly we no longer interact with nature. We simply destroy it, but that doesn't mean we're at the top of the food chain. Just imagine: human vs bear. Who's going to win? Even if you had a gun, the bear would still probably win unless you were very skilled with your human tool. Odd... the bear doesn't seem to need any tools to rip your arm clean off. ;)

Thats just how humans work. Now, what if the tables we seemingly controlled were turned on us? Aliens come out of the sky, and see us as just another rat in the attic. Just another spider on the wall. Just another animal worth hunting and/or eating. They seemingly care as much about us as we care about the random ants we happen to step on while walking down the street.

These Aliens or whatever are sentient. They can, for the sake of argument, communicate with us. They may, or may not have already killed humans with as much care and thought as someone ordering a steak. They choose to talk to you.

How would you convince advanced "unsympathetic" Aliens that it was morally wrong to kill humans?
Would you risk using a human religion? Would you explain natural rights? Would you tell them that they would have no right too? Would you explain that it was immoral to kill things?


"I'll just fight back with my nukes!" Is not an option. For the sake of argument, these Aliens make our nukes look like water droplets. Fighting back is not an option at all. If it must be done, all military facilities on earth have been destroyed or are being held by the invaders.

You have this chance to save yourself and possibly humanity, otherwise you will be killed with as much sympathy as an exterminator spraying roaches.I assume since you're talking about 'turning the tables' on humans, you're guessing any 'advanced' race would treat us much the way we treat the rest of the world (and if that's the case, I find it very amusing indeed). As a result I think we'd probably get treated much the same way we treat other 'inferior' races: with disdain and indifference. I still doubt a drastically advanced race would even want to bother communicating with us. We didn't even bother trying to communicate with Africans when we first encountered them, and they're the same species as we are! We'd be sooo screwed if we were invaded by brilliant aliens. :lol:

Tommycat
03-10-2008, 11:36 PM
Well as someone who hunts, I hunt on a full stomach so that the growling doesn't scare the prey :D

They may want to keep us for that reason. Same reason we have hunting dogs. We can track. We can kill without eating the animal. So that they can eat and we can live off their scraps. We can also be a good prey should they decide to hunt us for fun. We're crafty. We're adaptable. We might actually be a challenge(same reason some people hunt bears).

They might want to keep us around for the same reason we keep monkeys around. Testing stuff on us that they wouldn't want tested on one of them.

Of course there is the off chance that they will look at the world and end up killing off the felines and canines. so that we may serve them as we did our old canine and feline overlords.

Inyri
03-10-2008, 11:38 PM
Well as someone who hunts, I hunt on a full stomach so that the growling doesn't scare the prey :DI don't think stalking around the supermarket counts as hunting.

Corinthian
03-10-2008, 11:46 PM
Besides, we have comparatively massive supplies of fissile materials. I always knew the Arms Race would pay off in the end.

Tommycat
03-10-2008, 11:48 PM
I don't think stalking around the supermarket counts as hunting.
Shows how much you know.... My wife goes to the supermarket.

I hunt and fish(though hunting is still a bit of a new hobby for me, and I'm ok at it). And if you think either of those are easy, I suggest you try it for a while. Especially using a bow(that's really new for me).

DeadYorick
03-11-2008, 12:36 AM
I'd say that's an illusion. We think we're at the top because frankly we no longer interact with nature. We simply destroy it, but that doesn't mean we're at the top of the food chain. Just imagine: human vs bear. Who's going to win? Even if you had a gun, the bear would still probably win unless you were very skilled with your human tool. Odd... the bear doesn't seem to need any tools to rip your arm clean off. ;)

The bear may be stronger. But this isn't the question about who would win in a fare fight. Its who's species is stronger overall. Basically humans are more intelligent, have more of a population and could wipe out the entire species of bears if they really wanted to. Humans aren't threatened by any animals. Really animals are threatened by humans.

Corinthian
03-11-2008, 12:42 AM
Uh....no, Inyri. The bear would lose in a fight against a human armed with a modern gun just about all the time, unless he was fighting a vegan or an idiot. Or both. Now, yes, we would lose if unarmed, but we don't fight unarmed that often, that's WHY we're at the top of the food chain.

Arcesious
03-11-2008, 12:45 AM
As corinthian said. We're smart, creative. We can ousamart animals. If we're unarmed we could just make a trap out of what we can find.

Corinthian
03-11-2008, 12:47 AM
Precisely. The fact that we survived long enough to reach modern civilization proves our superiority over the less intelligent ones. And we've been out of any serious danger from animals for thousands of years, short of a massive animal uprising which is impossible since they aren't intelligent enough to form an alliance and even if they were, Hellfire missiles work wonders against the Bear Battalions.

Totenkopf
03-11-2008, 12:47 AM
...Humans aren't threatened by any animals......

Just animal rights advocates. :D

Corinthian
03-11-2008, 01:12 AM
Who are traitors to the human species.

Inyri
03-11-2008, 01:20 AM
Uh....no, Inyri. The bear would lose in a fight against a human armed with a modern gun just about all the time, unless he was fighting a vegan or an idiot. Or both. Now, yes, we would lose if unarmed, but we don't fight unarmed that often, that's WHY we're at the top of the food chain.Unless the guy shot the bear in the head, it'd have the shooter's arms ripped off before the bear bled out. You don't seriously think bullet = instant death, do you? Let's be realistic.

Totenkopf
03-11-2008, 01:25 AM
Bullet doesn't necessarily equal instant death unless the aim is true, and in the case of the bear, the load powerful. If the bear is too close, it may have the advantage. Shoot enough rounds at the bear before he reaches you, he might just run off. They ain't sentient, but they're probably not too stupid either.

Inyri
03-11-2008, 01:27 AM
I daresay the bear is smarter than the man. I daresay most animals are smarter than us. Especially the folks up a few posts who have the deluded idea that humans are superior to other animals. I'd like to see them survive out int he wild. Then they can tell me who's superior and who's just cheating off of the inventions of the few exceptional specimens of our species.

DeadYorick
03-11-2008, 01:27 AM
Bullet doesn't necessarily equal instant death unless the aim is true, and in the case of the bear, the load powerful. If the bear is too close, it may have the advantage. Shoot enough rounds at the bear before he reaches you, he might just run off. They ain't sentient, but they're probably not too stupid either.

This is why man created the semi automatic rifle. So he could down the bear easily in less time.

Tommycat
03-11-2008, 01:31 AM
Haha my buddy went bear hunting. He had been hunting deer pretty regularly. When he saw the bear and shot it, the bear just got REALLLLLLY ticked off. Ya see with a deer, its aim for center of mass. With a bear... kill shot, or don't bother.
I daresay the bear is smarter than the man. I daresay most animals are smarter than us. Especially the folks up a few posts who have the deluded idea that humans are superior to other animals. I'd like to see them survive out int he wild. Then they can tell me who's superior and who's just cheating off of the inventions of the few exceptional specimens of our species.
Actually, man is smarter than a bear. Yes I can survive in the wild. In fact I can survive with only my own two hands. But then I've also been trained to do that. It doesn't take much to build a pit fall trap. I have yet to see a bear do that.

Inyri
03-11-2008, 01:31 AM
This is why man created the semi automatic rifle. So he could down the bear easily in less time.Thank you for demonstrating humanity's stupidity by bringing up the "let's hunt with a semi-automatic weapon." :lol:
Haha my buddy went bear hunting.I can say with confidence that your friend has got to be a moron to go bear hunting.

DeadYorick
03-11-2008, 01:34 AM
I daresay the bear is smarter than the man. I daresay most animals are smarter than us. Especially the folks up a few posts who have the deluded idea that humans are superior to other animals. I'd like to see them survive out int he wild. Then they can tell me who's superior and who's just cheating off of the inventions of the few exceptional specimens of our species.

It is highly debatable about how intelligent animals are. But animals survive in the wild since they evolved in the wild and were taught to survive in the wild. Humans haven't made it to the top of the food chain by just their brains but their ability to use logic in situations and their knack of not letting anyone stand in their way. Humans aren't just smart. They can use resources to their advantage

For example a human out in the wilderness meets a very angry bear. The human has no weapons at all. What he decides to do is climb a tree and make a stick-like weapon which lets him kill the bear with. Conclusion the human uses resources to his advantage while the bear just uses brute strength

Totenkopf
03-11-2008, 01:35 AM
C'mon, IF, next you'll say that fish are smarter than people b/c they can exist in a watery environment better than the average human. If people were "bred" to live in the wild, you'd probably still have many of them living off the brain power of the brighter/wilier ones, but still having adapted to their environment. What makes the human smarter is his ability to adapt his environment to himself and not merely the other way around. And b/c, as Rakata points out above, man is able to adjust to his weaknesses by compensating for them. Can a bear do that?

Det. Bart Lasiter
03-11-2008, 01:36 AM
I always knew the Arms Race would pay off in the end.Holy ****. I don't even know what to say.

Tommycat
03-11-2008, 01:41 AM
I can say with confidence that your friend has got to be a moron to go bear hunting.
And you prove your ignorance.

Inyri
03-11-2008, 02:11 AM
And you prove your ignorance.Hardly. Anyone who feels the need to hunt bears needs to reevaluate their life. I would say you prove your ignorance, but gee, that's needlessly agressive. :rolleyes:

Det. Bart Lasiter
03-11-2008, 02:24 AM
Hardly. Anyone who feels the need to hunt bears needs to reevaluate their life. I would say you prove your ignorance, but gee, that's needlessly agressive. :rolleyes:I have to concur with Inyri.

Also 700 GET for Inyrikins :O

Corinthian
03-11-2008, 02:35 AM
Naturally, because hunting has no purpose except for food. I certainly can't imagine that people might, for example, hunt down a wolf that had been slaughtering their livestock.

Anyway, it doesn't matter how big and tough the bear is, a decent caliber round with a jacketed hollow point will inflict a near-mortal wound. Three direct hits and that bear's going to either run, or die. Or both.

Jmac, if you don't know what to say, why say anything at all?

Det. Bart Lasiter
03-11-2008, 02:38 AM
Jmac, if you don't know what to say, why say anything at all?I thought my silence communicated my point more effectively.

Tommycat
03-11-2008, 02:44 AM
Hardly. Anyone who feels the need to hunt bears needs to reevaluate their life. I would say you prove your ignorance, but gee, that's needlessly agressive. :rolleyes:
Gosh, I guess my friend the engineer shouldn't have been hunting the bear that had attacked and killed his horse. You made assumptions about someone you had no information on about a hunting trip you had no idea about. An argument from ignorance. It was a statement of fact that you were ignorant of his mental state.

Inyri
03-11-2008, 02:50 AM
You're telling me that taking revenge on a bear makes your friend smart? Suddenly I think he's stupider. :lol:

True_Avery
03-11-2008, 02:52 AM
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9571/smithjx2.jpg
"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had... during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species... and I realized... that you're not actually mammals.

Every mammal on this planet... instinctively develops an equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you Humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply... and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive... is to spread to another area.

There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A Virus. Human beings are a disease. A cancer of this planet. You are a plague. And we... are the cure."
-Agent Smith

By posting about human superiority in a thread where the situation is that the tables have been turn on humanity, many of you have proven enough of your ignorance of both the subject and those involved to last a lifetime. Thank you for derailing this thread and proving to me that there really is no argument to save this species from being taken over by anything bigger than us.

Gosh, I guess my friend the engineer shouldn't have been hunting the bear that had attacked and killed his horse. You made assumptions about someone you had no information on about a hunting trip you had no idea about. An argument from ignorance. It was a statement of fact that you were ignorant of his mental state.
Good Job. Hope you feel proud of yourself.

Oh, and you don't get the right to call her ignorant of the subject. You gave limited information, and she assumed from there. It looks like you basically set her up to say something so that you could get the satisfaction of calling her ignorant. All you stated was that you went out and shot a bear. Next time, give more information when using it as an example in a debate.

and Inyri, your comments towards his friend certainly aren't helping either.

Jae Onasi
03-11-2008, 03:03 AM
I think we've exhausted useful discussion here, and per author request the thread is closed.