From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 10:26:53 +0800 Archived: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 08:32:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Sampling Earth's Biodiversity >From: Stanton T. Friedman <fsphys.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 15:07:01 -0400 >Subject: Re: Sampling Earth's Biodiversity >>From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 04:12:13 +0800 >>Subject: Re: Sampling Earth's Biodiversity >>>From: Stanton T. Friedman <fsphys.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:23:13 -0400 >>>Subject: Re: Sampling Earth's Biodiversity Hi Stanton, Thanks for your response. ><snip> >>>Robert Hastings has provided strong evidence that the aliens >>>are interested in our nuclear weapons. >>Yes! But how does an interest in human made nuclear weapons >>contradict my initial suggestion? In the original post I noted >>that nuclear war would represent a serious threat to a program >>of intended harvest and directed evolution in search for novel >>molecular agents. If you had spent vast sums of money building a >>farm in the outer reaches of nowhere and faced a pest problem >>with rabbits or somesuch, wouldn't their activity refocus your >>attention? But that doesn't suggest the pest represents a >>primary interest or goal of farming operations. >Sorry, but what I am suggesting is that aliens would be >concerned about their own survival and must keep tabs on other >civilizations (like us) that show signs of soon being able to >reach them and behavior indicating that war is their normal >response to disputes. I would think they would want to >quarantine beings like us. Yes, It is obviously easier to wipe >us out. So I take pleasure that they haven't. Yes. I saw that point and addressed it in a previous response. I'll address it again. If hypothetical Extraterrestrials were concerned about the risks associated with human technological and military development, both from a resource contention and military threat perspective, why not just eradicate humanity while we're weak? Kill us all. _Right Now._ Presumably, an F-35 is no match against a flying saucer. The military power asymmetry would give them the upper hand. Or, better yet, why didn't they kill us off while we were still building fires by flint, or by rubbing two sticks, huddling together in small groups within cold caves for survival? Why wait for us to realize that threat before acting? Perhaps you'll offer a moral argument. That genocide is inherently evil and thus 'humane' (I struggle to use that word) Extraterrestrials would refuse to consider such vile conduct until we directly engage them in battle. Yet why that presumption? Isn't it anthropocentric in nature? I can think of several counterarguments. - You seem to hold the view that the existence of so-called abduction phenomena is well backed by available evidence. Assuming this is true, ask yourself: Does this behavior conform to your expectations of a so-called 'moral species'? How do you reconcile keeping a threatening primitive species alive due to moral considerations while at the same time engaging in a long- term experimental program on them as well? - Morality is a social phenomena. That is, morality is meaningless outside of a society which knits together members of the same species. Morality and ethics are not purely altruistic, for it imposes a set of rules on members that gives the whole group advantage over others who do not conform. Yet, if that's so, why should an Extraterrestrial species impart rules of morality against a competing unrelated species? Social animals on Earth do _not_ behave like that. Competitors are dealt with harshly, while members in the group behave according to the rules (or find themselves ousted). - An altruistic perspective is equally suspect. Altruism tends to favor kinship. The closer one is related to another, the more likely an individual is willing to sacrifice oneself in order to help the survival of another. There are many studies in the evolutionary biology literature which back this up. Yet, by definition, Extraterrestrials would be vastly more far removed genetically from humanity than even the difference between leopard and chimpanzee. Can you imagine a hungry leopard offering altruism to a lone and injured chimp? Yet the mother - or possibly group members - of that chimp most certainly would. >I suspect there are plenty of local neighborhood libraries >showing data on our diiversity. But now we are a threat to both >visit and be nasty. I expect they are from the local >neighborhood not distant solar systems... After all Zeta 1 and >Zeta 2 are sunlike stars only 39.3 ly away from us, about an >eighth of an ly apart from each other and a cool billion years >older than the sun This is irrelevant and does not drive at the core argument. >I think the complexity notions would be great for a science >fiction novel, A most generous assessment. Thank you! >but don't seem to fit the thousands of physical >trace cases, abductions etc. Incidentally the nice thing about, >for example, The Betty and Barney Hill case is the physical >evidence that abounds not just the hypnosis sessions. Curious, yet off topic. Could you describe and list examples of that physical evidence? Best, Maynard Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp