Replacement for Oil or Space Travel

[Andrew]

How did this turn into alien argument?

If the universe is virtually infinite, then there is probably good reason there would be at least "life" (whether it is plant, animal, bacteria etc). I mean how is it possible that Earth is where it is at? If another planet in another galaxy has the same properties as earth, why couldn't life develope there?

Probability that aliens are flying around probing people is much less likely.

[TheRedDuke05]

How did this turn into alien argument?

If the universe is virtually infinite, then there is probably good reason there would be at least "life" (whether it is plant, animal, bacteria etc). I mean how is it possible that Earth is where it is at? If another planet in another galaxy has the same properties as earth, why couldn't life develope there?

Probability that aliens are flying around probing people is much less likely.

You missed when me an Dante turned this thread about wether a single nation a good or not  ;D

And don't forget Mars has traces of slowing water in it, which probably means there was life there at some point besides the little mircrobs we have seen there.

[Acriku]

You should know topics never stay exactly on track Andrew ;) To do otherwise would be against our traditional values.

There's probably life in the Universe, but for it to be in a form with which we could communicate with is practically improbable. Edric can explain it better than I could.

[Dante]

You will automatically hasten it if you don't try to survive, just like the human species. If we do not spread to other worlds, then we will simply die out. To survive you must expand.

Four words. Birth control and recycling.

And how does that species recognize that time? When huge alien ships are hovering over our cities? An educated species would look for other ways to survive. I wouldn't believe it one day that a we would not find another way to survive if we were faced with extinction - no matter what the threat.

Sure, we can find ways to survive. But there are limits. Or there should be. I'm not saying that we should all give up now, just that once the population reaches a certain stage (which some might argue it already has) we cut back rather than spread out.

I don't know how things will look like when we come to that stage, as I said, it is up to humanity to realize that humans are humans, not different spicies living on the same planet. I would much rather see that colonized planets would be "owned" by the whole of humanity, and not a country or a corporation. But to do that, we need a change in the world systems we have - or, yes, that might be the situation.

What country has jurisdriction over the moon?

Technically, none. Practically, whoever has the power to get there and use it. And I believe there have been instances of selling property on the moon...

Ants are a species that live in huge colonies, and one of their greatest threats is each other. It has been theorised that if ants ever stopped fighting each other and started to work together, nothing and nobody would be safe. Fortunately, they spend all their time fighitng and killing each other, and so leave the rest of us alone. That pretty much explains my attitude toward human unity. We need opposition to each other, lest we grow too powerful.

The definition of intelligent life is that one that can communicate with each other, one that knows that it exists. If you mean we would have the right to kill and plunder all kinds of "alien animal" life on other planets as soon as we get there, I would say that is not the case. It is not only in our being to explore, it is in us to take care of those environments and life-forms should we decide to colonize such a planet.

Intelligence doesn't mean that we are free to do whatever we want to any lifeform that do not have intelligence.

And what if our very presence harms them? What if their very presence harms us? If two species caannot coexist, what happens then? Our interference could have a destructive effect, even if intentions were benign. The settlers in America attempted to 'educate' the natives in how to farm 'properly,' i.e. using European methods. They failed to realise that their methods just would not work in a foreign terrain, and the result was terrible harvests. Good intentions, bad results. The same can be said of introducing the cane toad and rabbit to Australia.

Thus the reason for colonization. If that planet has a completely different ecosystem, then we would probably leave it alone, I don't really know. But of all the stars in the universe, some of them just have to have other habitable or semi-habitable planets. The hard part is to get there.

Just because something is there for the taking, doesn't mean that it should be taken.

That we don't know anything about now. It seems to me like you're thinking that when we find, and get to that planet, we will still be at our current technological capabilities, which I doubt.

But you are also thinking in a dystophical way. Why is it so impossible to just live side-by-side on that planet?

If we had our current technology, we would be able to get there. No, what I believe will not change is human attitude, which is essentially destructive and self-centred. I do not believe that, upon finding a habitable alien world, we would spend the remotest ammount of time examining it from orbit before plunging in and building bases. Examination period should exceed several hundred years.

As for living side by side... Every single time a foreign lifeform has been introduced into an ecosystem here, it has been a disaster. Rabbits and cane toads in Australia, rats and pigs on Mauritius, rhododendrons... just about everywhere, the list goes on.

"When a foreign species is introduced into an ecosystem, often the ecosystem contains no natural predators for the new species. This lack of predators sometimes leads to; in conjunction with a supply of food suitable for the new species, a period of exponential growth of the species. This growth and severe increase in the size of the population can cause a shortage of food for native species. When this occurs, the native species disappear and the biodiversity in the ecosystem is reduced. The carrying capacity is also reduced because the ecosystem will not be capable of supporting the same amount of life. If one species hogs the food and does not contribute itself to the food chain, the balance is disrupted and there will be less available for the native species."

And from http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/invasive_species.htm

"We can thus conclude that invasive species are:

A major threat to ecosystem health (especially where ecosystems are already impacted)

A major factor in species extinction, especially in tropical climates and on islands

A major threat for global biodiversity, because the transport of species in essence creates one global ecosystem

The cause of major financial damages

Hardly or not limited in spread by international treaties"

That's why not.

Yes - if that planet has it's own inhabitants. As I said before, it all depends on how humanity will be when we get there. If we seek minerals and money, then sure, it would probably be one of the biggest massacres humanity will commit. But you must also take in account that other alien civilizations most probably also colonize space, when they get to that stage. If so, it would mean that the whole universe is filled with "racial arrogant and violent aliens", which would make the whole question of existance even more meaningless.

You're assuming that they think like you. There is every possibility that they think like me, and stay at home. That's what makes them alien, being different. If they exist. And the point does not just apply if the planet has sentient inhabitants. Lifeless balls of rock and ice are also included.

That is just like saying we shouldn't research a cure to cancer - since that is an organism, and we shouldn't mess with it. Or HIV/AIDS, or any other deceases.

Cancer is a malfunction in a body's own systems. It is not caused by an infectious agent or species. Otherwise it would be contagious, wouldn't it?

Those diseases that are caused by microscopic life are a threat to us, true, but none of them have actually wiped out the population. I think that they provide a much-needed cap on the population. Everything has its place, and disease is an important part of many ecosystems. Smallpox-style eradications aren't such a good idea, really. Now conditions such as Cancer, Alzheimer

[Dude_Doc]

As far as aliens go, I really can't argue against Edric's argument of improbability against aliens existing... despite how much my childlike imagination wants there to be.

Actually, I don't think that it is childish at all to think that we are alone in the universe. Once, I believed that there were aliens in the universe, that there must be, and that people who thought "no, I don't believe they exist" were stupid and ignorant.

But after all, what do we know? We have a sound theory of the probability of alien life on other places (which said something of 30,000 civilizations in this galaxy alone, no?), but more than that, we simply don't know.

If the universe is virtually infinite, then there is probably good reason there would be at least "life" (whether it is plant, animal, bacteria etc).

But the universe is not infinite. But it is really huge. It is so huge that a civilization could rise and fall, and by the time we get the first signal they sent out in space (or encounter one of their sattelites), that civilization could be long gone. Maybe the universe is so big that civilizations simply can't contact each other, and even if they could, messages would take centuries to get from planet to planet.

Then, of course, the alien civilization could just as well be very aggressive, uncaring of their environment, greedy to the core, and so on.

So the question isn't really if there is alien life, but how they are, what they are, and probably most importantly, where they are (you wouldn't want a hostile civilization to live close to you, right?).

I mean how is it possible that Earth is where it is at? If another planet in another galaxy has the same properties as earth, why couldn't life develope there?

Why must there be other intelligences in the universe? Maybe we got "lucky" in a way that we got an almost perfect planet? Personally, I do believe that there is other civilizations on other planets, but that is where it all stops. Do they have the capability to come here? Are they still at the stone age? etc...

No, it wouldn't. Its survival matters above all. That's not called being arrogant; it's being egoist.

Is it egoism that a lifeform wants to live? Are you selfish when you choose to survive with a weak paycheck, instead of giving it all to a homeless guy? Maybe it is in the bear's nature to choose it's own survival in front of the wolf's?

Ants are a species that live in huge colonies, and one of their greatest threats is each other. It has been theorised that if ants ever stopped fighting each other and started to work together, nothing and nobody would be safe. Fortunately, they spend all their time fighitng and killing each other, and so leave the rest of us alone. That pretty much explains my attitude toward human unity. We need opposition to each other, lest we grow too powerful.

But humans are not controlled by a hive-mind, like the ants are. We build, or should build, our society on respect for each other, helping each other, being equal towards each other. Ants are controlled by the allmighty queen, they can't do anything by themselves.

And what if our very presence harms them? What if their very presence harms us? If two species caannot coexist, what happens then?

Then, most likely, we won't live side by side.

Just because something is there for the taking, doesn't mean that it should be taken.

According to whom? God? A universal artificial intelligence? The UFO's? Who?

If we had our current technology, we would be able to get there. No, what I believe will not change is human attitude, which is essentially destructive and self-centred.

You seem to think that humans are the single, most evil force in the history of everything. If there is other alien life-forms, they'd most likely behave like us: "destructive and self-centered".

I do not believe that, upon finding a habitable alien world, we would spend the remotest ammount of time examining it from orbit before plunging in and building bases.

Yes, if it is a lifeless piece of rock similar to Mars or something.

Examination period should exceed several hundred years.

Is that because of your hate against humanity or is it from a scientific point of view?

That's why not.

Mmmh... okey, we'll leave Mars for the bacteria...

You're assuming that they think like you.

Not just me, but the majority of the humans on this planet.

Those diseases that are caused by microscopic life are a threat to us, true, but none of them have actually wiped out the population. I think that they provide a much-needed cap on the population.

It's always easy to talk so lightly about human and humanity that way, isn't it? Until one day, when you wake up with the decease.

[Dante]

But humans are not controlled by a hive-mind, like the ants are. We build, or should build, our society on respect for each other, helping each other, being equal towards each other. Ants are controlled by the allmighty queen, they can't do anything by themselves.

That's beside the point. If the Queens were prepared to work together, they could seriously harm the world. Same goes for humans. The divides between factions of the species keep it from grow too powerful.

Then, most likely, we won't live side by side.

Yes. And the alternative is?

According to whom? God? A universal artificial intelligence? The UFO's? Who?

Common sense. Just because something is there for the taking, doesn't mean that it should be taken. It goes along with such sayings as look before you leap, don't bite off more than you can chew, size isn't everything, etc.

You seem to think that humans are the single, most evil force in the history of everything.

I don't believe in evil. I do, however, believe that humanity is destructive, careless, self-centred, short-sighted, and generally dim. Note that this applies only on a large scale. On an individual scale, some of those qualities are useful in given situations.

If there is other alien life-forms, they'd most likely behave like us: "destructive and self-centered".

Why?

Yes, if it is a lifeless piece of rock similar to Mars or something.

Precisely. That's bad.

Is that because of your hate against humanity or is it from a scientific point of view?

Both. I think that the study should be carried out correctly for as long as is necessary. If that is so long as to prevent colonisation, all the better. Humanity doesn't deserve it.

Mmmh... okey, we'll leave Mars for the bacteria...

Good.

Not just me, but the majority of the humans on this planet.

The point still stands... What makes you think that an alien race will think anything like the way you (or they) do?

It's always easy to talk so lightly about human and humanity that way, isn't it? Until one day, when you wake up with the decease.

It's spelt 'disease.' And one of the nice things about diseases is that they rarely discriminate among their victims. So anyone and everyone could get them, if they don't take the proper precautions. Or cheat.

[Dante]

One day eventually we will need to expand even if we employ these methods.

Not the way I envision them.

Then somehow nature will make sure to set the limits for us. There is no example of a lifeform setting its own limits.

We have, unfortunately, moved beyond nature's capacity to limit our development. The best efforts have been the development of new diseases such as HIV and ebola, and even they aren't being so effective. Short of a global pandemic, nature has very little left to test us with.

That's theoritical and subjective. Who is considered intelligent?

People who can see a bigger picture. Not necessarily the same one, mind you.

You said there is no base where causing extinction of a species is acceptable. It isn't unacceptable either though.

It is one or the other. In this case it is unacceptable.

You also said that it may only be seen as acceptable on the basis on profit. Survival is the profit humankind will get (if is necessary to exterminate another species to do that).

I said that profit was the only basis I could think of for causing extinction. I didn't say that I agreed with it.

Run to where? Another planet? I thought you didn't want that. But certainly, if we find a planet whose ecosystem will be destroyed by human colonization, we can search for another.

There won't be one. And I figure that we can just keep running. Never find a planet, never settle down, eventually our transport will give out and we all die. :)

Since when arrogant and egoist are the same things

[Edric O]

Some things are more important than the survival of a destructive species.

Yes, such as the survival of Life as a whole. And I'd like to remind you, Dante, that Life has less than 4 billion years left to exist unless it finds some means of transportation beyond the confines of Earth. And guess what? Those means of transportation have just sprung into being recently. They are called Homo Sapiens. Us. WE, and we alone, have the power to spread life across the galaxy and the universe. Without us, Life is doomed. With us, Life has a chance to achieve exponential growth, to populate countless worlds and produce a diversity of species that is unthinkable on our single little planet.

Think of it this way: Human beings are the Earth's reproductive organs. Our mission is to create new Earths out of lifeless planets. And like all reproductive organs, we are using up lots of resources that would otherwise go towards the other "organs" of the Earth. When a plant creates flowers and fruit, this takes a lot of effort. It diverts resources that could be used to grow more leaves or roots. But it is a worthwhile sacrifice, because flowers and fruit are needed to make new plants. Likewise, human beings represent a great sacrifice for Life. They use up immense amounts of resources and harm some of the other "organs". But it is a worthwhile sacrifice, because humans are needed to make new Earths.

In brief, the survival and expansion of the human species is the essential prerequisite for the survival and expansion of all Life.

[Andrew]

Nicely put Edric O

Never thought of humanity that way.

Kinda like Noah's Ark, but in space.

[TheRedDuke05]

Yes, such as the survival of Life as a whole. And I'd like to remind you, Dante, that Life has less than 4 billion years left to exist unless it finds some means of transportation beyond the confines of Earth.

Actually we need to get as far away from earth as possible, since when the sun goes nova and creates a huge black hole, most of the planets of the solar system will be destroyed, including Earth. So we probably have to go into another galaxy just to survive that.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Yes, such as the survival of Life as a whole. And I'd like to remind you, Dante, that Life has less than 4 billion years left to exist unless it finds some means of transportation beyond the confines of Earth. And guess what? Those means of transportation have just sprung into being recently. They are called Homo Sapiens. Us. WE, and we alone, have the power to spread life across the galaxy and the universe. Without us, Life is doomed. With us, Life has a chance to achieve exponential growth, to populate countless worlds and produce a diversity of species that is unthinkable on our single little planet.

Think of it this way: Human beings are the Earth's reproductive organs. Our mission is to create new Earths out of lifeless planets. And like all reproductive organs, we are using up lots of resources that would otherwise go towards the other "organs" of the Earth. When a plant creates flowers and fruit, this takes a lot of effort. It diverts resources that could be used to grow more leaves or roots. But it is a worthwhile sacrifice, because flowers and fruit are needed to make new plants. Likewise, human beings represent a great sacrifice for Life. They use up immense amounts of resources and harm some of the other "organs". But it is a worthwhile sacrifice, because humans are needed to make new Earths.

In brief, the survival and expansion of the human species is the essential prerequisite for the survival and expansion of all Life.

Edrico that was a beautiful analogy..... i got all teary eyed.

[Dude_Doc]

Same goes for humans. The divides between factions of the species keep it from grow too powerful.

On the contrary, how many wars have we waged? How many environments have we destroyed? Think how many animals we have killed because of competition, and not cooperation. We went to Africa and America, we thought that we, the white European man and woman, stood over the "wild negro" or the "terrorizing indian". How would the world look if we respected them as human beings when we first encountered them? And this is just a small example.

Yes. And the alternative is?

Alternative of staying or leaving a lifeless rock in space?

Common sense. Just because something is there for the taking, doesn't mean that it should be taken. It goes along with such sayings as look before you leap, don't bite off more than you can chew, size isn't everything, etc.

I don't think we can argue much on this. You're saying that humans don't have the brains to understand colonization, while I see it as a mission, a future - who we are, no?

I don't believe in evil. I do, however, believe that humanity is destructive, careless, self-centred, short-sighted, and generally dim.

You know why? Because humanity has been ruled by governments and dictators. Our systems are filled with corruption and confusion. You're forced to think like everybody else, to watch on CNN/Fox News, to do the bidding of your president, or your king, or your CEO. You're forced to give up your friends in order to survive yourself. When we change the general system, then we can change ourselves. When we work for each other, and not the corporation, only then can we truly be ready for space.

But until that phase, if we go out in space in our current political stage, then of course we will bring with us the dumbness, destruction and the dimness of ourselves.

Why?

You don't think it would be very odd if humans were the only race with the properties you described?

The point still stands... What makes you think that an alien race will think anything like the way you (or they) do?

Because, apparently and obviously, most organic life on this planet behave that way: to preserve oneself. To survive. With intelligence comes feelings, along with the belief of being able to survive, to deny demise. We already know that we're going to die, all of us. We know that humanity will die out one day, or die with the universe, if we survive that long. Once again, what is the point of doing anything?

Actually we need to get as far away from earth as possible, since when the sun goes nova and creates a huge black hole, most of the planets of the solar system will be destroyed, including Earth.

I don't think that the sun is massive (/heavy) enough to form a black hole after it's demise. However, you're right that we need to get away from here - within 2 billion years :D ...

Besides, it has been theorized that each galaxy has a huge black hole in it's center, thus the reason for all the millions of stars to spin around in galaxies, like they do. What else could have such a gravitational pull to capture all the stars? Though, we still don't "know" what gravity is, or what causes gravity.

So we probably have to go into another galaxy just to survive that.

Trust me - there are probably billions of black holes in all around the universe. So long we keep out of the event horizon, we should be fine.

Because, you wouldn't want to be in a place with literally no time and no space? :D

Edrico that was a beautiful analogy..... i got all teary eyed.

Pi-roger that.

[Dante]

Yes, such as the survival of Life as a whole. And I'd like to remind you, Dante, that Life has less than 4 billion years left to exist unless it finds some means of transportation beyond the confines of Earth. And guess what? Those means of transportation have just sprung into being recently. They are called Homo Sapiens. Us. WE, and we alone, have the power to spread life across the galaxy and the universe. Without us, Life is doomed. With us, Life has a chance to achieve exponential growth, to populate countless worlds and produce a diversity of species that is unthinkable on our single little planet.

Think of it this way: Human beings are the Earth's reproductive organs. Our mission is to create new Earths out of lifeless planets. And like all reproductive organs, we are using up lots of resources that would otherwise go towards the other "organs" of the Earth. When a plant creates flowers and fruit, this takes a lot of effort. It diverts resources that could be used to grow more leaves or roots. But it is a worthwhile sacrifice, because flowers and fruit are needed to make new plants. Likewise, human beings represent a great sacrifice for Life. They use up immense amounts of resources and harm some of the other "organs". But it is a worthwhile sacrifice, because humans are needed to make new Earths.

In brief, the survival and expansion of the human species is the essential prerequisite for the survival and expansion of all Life.

Ah, that would be great. Like Titan A.E. Too bad that most of this organ is cancerous, and busy producing useless and harmful cells that kill the whole body. Once again, I agree with you in principle. If humanity were to dedicate itself to the survival of life as a whole (and the preservation of the non-living as well), then I would be prepared to concede the argument.

Actually we need to get as far away from earth as possible, since when the sun goes nova and creates a huge black hole, most of the planets of the solar system will be destroyed, including Earth. So we probably have to go into another galaxy just to survive that.

You don't know much about astronomy, do you?

As Edric pointed out, a supernova is not the only fate that the sun could have in reserve for us. It could become a Red Giant first, and from there become a dwarf of any colour, or even a pulsar. It might form a Black Hole, but then again it might not. There are black holes in the galaxy already (some theorise that every galaxy has one in its centre, with the stars orbiting around it. Makes sense, considering the gravitational pull that the centre must exert...), so moving to another one really isn't necessary. If we were to move, in astronomical terms it would not have to be far. Probably not out of this arm of the galaxy. Assuming that there's another habitable planet out there.

On the contrary, how many wars have we waged? How many environments have we destroyed? Think how many animals we have killed because of competition, and not cooperation. We went to Africa and America, we thought that we, the white European man and woman, stood over the "wild negro" or the "terrorizing indian". How would the world look if we respected them as human beings when we first encountered them? And this is just a small example.

...

You just supported my argument. We have both said that competition harms the human race. I add that this harm prevents us from growing too poweful through cooperation. You seem to agree.

Alternative of staying or leaving a lifeless rock in space?

Alternative to living side-by-side with a harmful (not to say hostile) species. For example, we find a planet populated by cat-like animals that give out a toxin which is deadly to humans. These creatures are docile, but numerous. You say we don't live side by side with them, so the alternative is?

I don't think we can argue much on this. You're saying that humans don't have the brains to understand colonization, while I see it as a mission, a future - who we are, no?

No, you're straying from the point. Say a fox wanders past a dead rabbit, that has been poisoned and left for the fox. Or a child wandering down the street who sees a smaller, weaker child with a new toy. Just because something is there for the taking, doesn't mean that it should be taken.

You know why? Because humanity has been ruled by governments and dictators. Our systems are filled with corruption and confusion. You're forced to think like everybody else, to watch on CNN/Fox News, to do the bidding of your president, or your king, or your CEO. You're forced to give up your friends in order to survive yourself. When we change the general system, then we can change ourselves. When we work for each other, and not the corporation, only then can we truly be ready for space.

You believe that's possible? Because I don't think that society shapes us, I think that we shape society. Selfish, cruel, and destructive.

You don't think it would be very odd if humans were the only race with the properties you described?

Statistically speaking, we're less likely to meet a hostile race than an indifferent one. Logically speaking, there is no possible way to guarantee or guess at the psychology of an alien species.

Because, apparently and obviously, most organic life on this planet behave that way: to preserve oneself. To survive. With intelligence comes feelings, along with the belief of being able to survive, to deny demise. We already know that we're going to die, all of us. We know that humanity will die out one day, or die with the universe, if we survive that long. Once again, what is the point of doing anything?

There isn't an answer to that. Everyone makes their own.

See above point. There is no guarantee that aliens will be anything like us, or any other kind of life that we know of.

I don't think that the sun is massive (/heavy) enough to form a black hole after it's demise. However, you're right that we need to get away from here - within 2 billion years :D ...

Besides, it has been theorized that each galaxy has a huge black hole in it's center, thus the reason for all the millions of stars to spin around in galaxies, like they do. What else could have such a gravitational pull to capture all the stars? Though, we still don't "know" what gravity is, or what causes gravity.

Oh, someone else said this as well. Oh well *shrug.*

At the most basic level, this boils down to a belief that humanity just doesn't deserve to survive. If, as I said above, the species would change, then perhaps the situation would change too.

[Acriku]

Think of it this way: Human beings are the Earth's reproductive organs. Our mission is to create new Earths out of lifeless planets. And like all reproductive organs, we are using up lots of resources that would otherwise go towards the other "organs" of the Earth. When a plant creates flowers and fruit, this takes a lot of effort. It diverts resources that could be used to grow more leaves or roots. But it is a worthwhile sacrifice, because flowers and fruit are needed to make new plants. Likewise, human beings represent a great sacrifice for Life. They use up immense amounts of resources and harm some of the other "organs". But it is a worthwhile sacrifice, because humans are needed to make new Earths.

In brief, the survival and expansion of the human species is the essential prerequisite for the survival and expansion of all Life.

Then we must pool our blood (or resources) to one part of the body (or economic structure), and erect a viable plan to penetrate the folds of space. We have four billion years to give space the best penetration its ever had!

Sorry Edric... couldn't resist.

[Dude_Doc]

You just supported my argument. We have both said that competition harms the human race. I add that this harm prevents us from growing too poweful through cooperation. You seem to agree.

Yes, we both agree that humans, and almost all organisms are better off cooperating than competing with each other. What I meant was that I believe that if we cooperate, we will also change our current ways of doing things. Do I agree that we become powerful if we cooperate? Yes, I do. I believe that mankind will develop such a knowledge, respect and "brotherhood" among each other - a force never before seen in human history. Our potential will become enormous.

Do I believe that we can become too powerful? No. And even if we somehow do, then by then we would have evolved into a stage where such power is understood and wielded as part of "everything".

Alternative to living side-by-side with a harmful (not to say hostile) species. For example, we find a planet populated by cat-like animals that give out a toxin which is deadly to humans. These creatures are docile, but numerous. You say we don't live side by side with them, so the alternative is?

Then we leave that planet alone. Once again, it depends on how we are when we get to their planet. If interplanetary corporations loom around that time, then of course the answer would be "extermination of this deadly species".

Say a fox wanders past a dead rabbit, that has been poisoned and left for the fox. Or a child wandering down the street who sees a smaller, weaker child with a new toy. Just because something is there for the taking, doesn't mean that it should be taken.

Once again, who decides this? No one does. You could just as well say "just because someone needs help, you shouldn't help that person". If an alien civilization don't own the planet, if the planet is a barren god-forsaken rock somewhere near hell, without any form of life on it, the I think it is pretty justified to colonize that place.

You believe that's possible? Because I don't think that society shapes us, I think that we shape society. Selfish, cruel, and destructive.

We did shape society at a time in the past, until society shaped us. I believe that it is possible to reverse the effect and become ourselves again.

See above point. There is no guarantee that aliens will be anything like us, or any other kind of life that we know of.

No, and there are no guarantees either that aliens will be completely different.

[Dante]

Yes, we both agree that humans, and almost all organisms are better off cooperating than competing with each other.

Not better off, just more successful in the short term.

What I meant was that I believe that if we cooperate, we will also change our current ways of doing things. Do I agree that we become powerful if we cooperate? Yes, I do. I believe that mankind will develop such a knowledge, respect and "brotherhood" among each other - a force never before seen in human history. Our potential will become enormous.

Once again, this is not a good thing. We are already too powerful. Just think of the ants. If they worked together, moving everything grain by grain, they could destroy almost anything. That wouldn't be very healthy for the rest of us. If humans become too powerful by working together, there will be virtually no limit to what they could achieve. I fear for exactly what those 'achievements' would consist of.

Do I believe that we can become too powerful? No. And even if we somehow do, then by then we would have evolved into a stage where such power is understood and wielded as part of "everything".

We have the power to destroy this world more than sixty times over. That's too much already. I see no enlightenment.

Then we leave that planet alone. Once again, it depends on how we are when we get to their planet. If interplanetary corporations loom around that time, then of course the answer would be "extermination of this deadly species".

If we are on a mission to preserve all life as Edric lined out, yes. If not, I doubt that humanity would balk at the destruction.

But that was just an obvious example. What if thise was a bacterial agent? A plant vital to the ecosystem of the planet? A non-vital plant?

Once again, who decides this? No one does. You could just as well say "just because someone needs help, you shouldn't help that person". If an alien civilization don't own the planet, if the planet is a barren god-forsaken rock somewhere near hell, without any form of life on it, the I think it is pretty justified to colonize that place.

Because you believe that humanity deserves it, and that there is nothing more that the planet could achieve. I do not.

We did shape society at a time in the past, until society shaped us. I believe that it is possible to reverse the effect and become ourselves again.

We are ourselves. Society reflects what is put into it, and what is put into it is done by individuals.

No, and there are no guarantees either that aliens will be completely different.

The point that I've been trying to get across is that there are no guarantees at all. "Logically speaking, there is no possible way to guarantee or guess at the psychology of an alien species." I.e. discussion on the subject is pointless.

[TheRedDuke05]

Well his is a cymek after all, and cymeks want to enslave all humanity  :'(

[Dante]

But according to you, nature makes sure to balance everything, so why it cannot set limits for us? And if it can't, why should we?

I already said that we have moved beyond nature's influence. It can no longer balance the force the humanity has become, and so it is up to humanity to enforce this balance upon itself. The alternatives are numerous, and unpleasant.

What is a bigger picture?

One that takes into account more than one opinion, or set of concerns. Preferably many of them.

By you.

By everyone with half a damned neuron left rattling inside their skulls.

Your view.

It would be rather silly if I argued with someone else's, wouldn't it?

I don't need to. It's obvious.

Mm hm? So I'm going to have to trawl through the thesaurus as well as the dictionary then? Very well.

Arrogant: 1- Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance. 2-Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak. 3- having or showing feelings of unwarranted importance out of overbearing pride; "an arrogant official"; "arrogant claims"; "chesty as a peacock."

Egoist: 1- One devoted to one's own interests and advancement; an egocentric person. 2- a conceited and self-centered person [syn: egotist, swellhead] 3- a self-centered person with little regard for others [syn: egocentric].

Arrogant, adjective

Definition: egotistic

Synonyms: aloof, assuming, audacious, autocratic, biggety, bossy, bragging, cavalier, cheeky, cocky, cold shoulder, conceited, contemptuous, cool, disdainful, domineering, ego trip, egotistic, haughty, high-handed, imperious, insolent, know-it-all, lordly, overbearing, peremptory, pompous, presumptuous, pretentious, proud, puffed up, scornful, self-important, smarty, smug, sniffy, snippy, snooty, snotty, stuck up, supercilious, superior, swaggering, uppity, vain.

There, is that enough? Or do I have to spell it out even more obviously? Arrogant = egocentric. Egoist = Arrogant person.

I didn't expect you to use generic phrases like "humanity has no right". Who hands out the rights to do things? Think of what you say: "just because something can be taken, it doesn't mean it should be taken". But it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken either.

I corrected your quote, since you got it wrong there. The point is that there is more to consider than just "Nobody owns it, it's ours." That kind of attitude has led to nothing but harm.

Clearly you hate humanity. You refuse to see the great potential we have - which is not to destroy.

I don't refuse to see it, I refuse to believe in it.

Well his is a cymek after all, and cymeks want to enslave all humanity

[GUNWOUNDS]

Spectral Paladin wrote:

1.) But according to you, nature makes sure to balance everything, so why it cannot set limits for us? And if it can't, why should we?

2.) What is a bigger picture?

3.) By you.

4.)Your view.

5.) I don't need to. It's obvious.

6.) I didn't expect you to use generic phrases like "humanity has no right". Who hands out the rights to do things? Think of what you say: "just because something can be taken, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken". But it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken either.

7.) Clearly you hate humanity. You refuse to see the great potential we have - which is not to destroy.

1.)

[GUNWOUNDS]

1.)Yes, there are unpleasant alternatives. You don't take into account the possibility that we might create more than we (or will) destroy.

2.) Yes it would, but the point I was trying to make is that it's not a general view.

3.) Gee, stop being so stubborn. You highlighted the word egotistic. Egoist is someone who doesn't care for others, arrogant is someone who considers himself superior to others.

4.) So when a rabbit finds a carrot and eats it, who gets harmed?

[Dante]

Yes, there are unpleasant alternatives. You don't take into account the possibility that we might create more than we (or will) destroy.

Because it's so unlikely as to be laughable.

Yes it would, but the point I was trying to make is that it's not a general view.

Because humanity is a destructive and generally nasty force, yes.

Gee, stop being so stubborn. You highlighted the word egotistic. Egoist is someone who doesn't care for others, arrogant is someone who considers himself superior to others.

The two are synonyms, how many dicionaries do I have to quote? Egoist isn't someone who does not care for others, it is someone who has greater regard for themself than for others, as in the definition I gave.

So when a rabbit finds a carrot and eats it, who gets harmed?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Simple example: There is a poor man that would survive if I gave him money. I believe he's more intelligent than me; I see him as superior. Yet I don't help him and he dies. I 'm selfish but not arrogant.

hah... you would be arrogant and selfish.... because you would think you were superior since you held his life in your hand...and because of course once the man is dead you will feel even more superior to him... cause most people dont feel inferior to corpses who died because of their actions. You are trying to cut the two words apart and it doesnt work... selfishness and arrogance are meshed... because if you only care for yourself... you are doing that because you feel that your own entity deserves everything you have because your survival is more important than someone elses.... so a selfish person will always be arrogant on some level.  You cant seperate it.

[Dante]

And if the rabbit suddenly discovers an allergy to carrots? You can keep changing the circumstances as much as you want, there will always be something else to consider.

So little faith in humanity

Humanity doesn't deserve it.

OF COURSE it is possible to be both arrogant and egoist, and one could cause the other. But not necessarily. Maybe you have problems with the english language. Simple example: There is a poor man that would survive if I gave him money. I believe he's more intelligent than me; I see him as superior. Yet I don't help him and he dies. I 'm selfish but not arrogant.

See Gunwounds' post.

I 'm not trying to be a smartass and I 'm aware of everything you posted. But Dante made an absolute statement that this attitude ALWAYS leads to harm and my simple example shows that it doesn't.

Except... the example doesn't work.

[GUNWOUNDS]

So little faith in humanity

Oh there is faith..... faith that humanity will repeat itself.... how many wars before you understand that?... even a "dumb" person (your own words) can understand that.

Lol if Nema is reading this, please  clarify it. I did everything I could, even gave one nice simple example but some people are just dumb.

Technology will only make wars easier and more impersonal .. meaning we will have more of them and more frequently.... even a "dumb" person could understand that and i dont even need "Nema" to help me make that point.

[Dante]

Yes of course there are many circumstances under which the rabbit gets somehow harmed in the end. But there are certain circumstances under which the rabbit is not harmed by the carrot nor is anyone else affected in a negative way. So the example does work.

And there are certain circumstances where humanity will turn into a benevolent, altruistic species. That doesn't mean it's going to happen.

You even posted the definitions from the dictionary and still don't see the difference? Sad.

Just admit that you're wrong. It'll make the debate much easier.

hah... you would be arrogant and selfish.... because you would think you were superior since you held his life in your hand...and because of course once the man is dead you will feel even more superior to him... cause most people dont feel inferior to corpses who died because of their actions. You are trying to cut the two words apart and it doesnt work... selfishness and arrogance are meshed... because if you only care for yourself... you are doing that because you feel that your own entity deserves everything you have because your survival is more important than someone elses.... so a selfish person will always be arrogant on some level.