Science Fiction

[the_aphid]

I was watching the blockbuster sci-fi movie Independence Day this weekend, and despite all the egotistical American patriotism, and the cliche action-adventure sub-plots, I had to admit that it was an entertaining movie. However, the one thing that frustrates me the most about these sort of apocalyptic sci-fi stories (War of the Worlds, etc) of technologically advanced species invading and eradicating the human species is the illogical fear of these 'advanced species'. Well, that is next to the fact that somehow the human species seems to always find some way of defeating them. :rolleyes:

I quite frankly find it contradictory to think that any species capable of creating the technology to travel the universe would be a malevolent and destructing force to be reckoned with. I think that logically, any species that desired to develop this (hypothetical) technological ability, would first have to develop and adapt the more fundamental ethical and benevolent behaviour before successfully stepping out into space.

For example, one enormous drain on current advancement of space exploration (here on Earth) is the budget that is being blown on international battles. The trillion dollar bill on the Iraq war is a huge step away from say, colonizing the moon. All the rocket fuel that is used to blow up buildings and civilians could have instead been launching us into space and furthering our knowledge and understanding of the universe. We are beginning to realize that we need to find sustainable sources of energy and mindfully use our resources if we want to successfully accomplish the goal of colonizing space.

One thing that astronauts who have peered back at the Earth seem to consistently emphasize is the apparent fragility of our planet. Space exploration seems to inevitably encourage a peaceful demeanor, it encourages conservation of natural resources, and forces the intellect to appreciate all of life and the dependent biological network that sustains itself. It shrinks the ego and forces us to realize that we are small and weak lifeforms, but also that we have a seemingly infinite amount of potential which should be utilized.

My girlfriend and I got into a bit of an argument, me being the optimist, and her the pessimist, she seemed to feel that just like the invasion of the Americas and the 'conquering' of the aboriginals that were settled there, that humans are a perfect example of the possibility that there could be a species out there that would most certainly develop the malevolent nature of destroying life and selfishly sustaining themselves. However, I refuted by suggesting that with our very own efforts into space, we are already reaching out in a peaceful nature. Similar to the concepts which were held by individuals like Gene Roddenberry or Carl Sagan, we seem to already understand the impact we would have on a developing society out there in the universe should we step out to explore it.

I guess this is the reason I much prefer a movie like The Day the Earth Stood Still (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Earth_Stood_Still_%281951_film%29) (which btw they are currently filming the remake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Earth_Stood_Still_%282008_film%29) of here in Vancouver) over a movie like War of the Worlds.

What do others think? Do you think that it is possible that humankind or any intelligent species could simultaneously develop the knowledge and ability to travel into space whilst still maintaining a destructive and malevolent nature? :think:

[scameter]

Aphid:I quite frankly find it contradictory to think that any species capable of creating the technology to travel the universe would be a malevolent and destructing force to be reckoned with. I think that logically, any species that desired to develop this (hypothetical) technological ability, would first have to develop and adapt the more fundamental ethical and benevolent behaviour before successfully stepping out into space.

Sounds like Gene Roddenbury's views, the creator of Star Trek, who essentially equated a focus on science and having advanced technology synonymous with good ethics and social environments, though I personally don't think anything would only allow good ethics to be possible. Anything can be corrupted, including technology.

[the_aphid]

Sounds like Gene Roddenbury's views, the creator of Star Trek, who essentially equated a focus on science and having advanced technology synonymous with good ethics and social environments, though I personally don't think anything would only allow good ethics to be possible. Anything can be corrupted, including technology.Well even in the fictional world of Star Trek there were 'evil-doers' like the Romulans or the Borg, it doesn't make very interesting science fiction if you don't have 'enemies' to create conflict. But I personally believe that it is likely the progress of adaptation, that species would evolve from primordial savagery to an advanced benevolence. I think adopting violent and malevolent behaviour would only 'set you back' on this supposed path of 'advancement'. I think it is evident in human behaviour, over the millennia I would argue that we generally are becoming more 'civilized', more 'ethical' and less 'violent'. They are advantageous and successful memes which seem to encourage survival. But it is just my opinion, and I know lots of people would disagree with me. :unsure:

[scameter]

I would. One reason why I would, is because more people have died from war in the 20th and 21st centuries than in all wars throughout history before that time, and because the first two world wars in history occurred in the 20th century, and because there is still war and military technology in the most advanced to the least advanced countries, etc. One thing you're forgetting is the nature of competition in evolution.

[j000han]

[quote=tWe are beginning to realize that we need to find sustainable sources of energy and mindfully use our resources if we want to successfully accomplish the goal of colonizing space.

Those who indeed can conceive that that is the goAl,
hopefully are ready for taking charge in conducting the nessessesairy adjudgements that yet are to be made.
It is a very very serious choice ,
regardless wheter one is in the camp of the immortalists or mortalists,
the choice is eternal life or ETERNAL death but ETERNAL anyway.
Whatshowever ones believestystem may be,
it will need to to provide for a concept of eternity; that is eternal nothingness or
SOMETHING ELSE.

[the_aphid]

I would. One reason why I would, is because more people have died from war in the 20th and 21st centuries than in all wars throughout history before that time, and because the first two world wars in history occurred in the 20th century, and because there is still war and military technology in the most advanced to the least advanced countries, etc.What leads you to conclude this? Myself and Steve Pinker (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/163) would disagree with you. He explains how it is a misconception that we are generally more violent today than thousands of years ago. The point he emphasizes is that the 'violence per capita', so to speak, has become greatly reduced in modern times. There are over 6 billion people in the world today, and only a very small percentage of these people have to worry about dying in violence and warfare. He quotes a verse from the Book of Numbers to emphasize the 'procedures of war' in biblical times:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
One thing you're forgetting is the nature of competition in evolution.On the contrary, I am specifically considering the competition, but the competition of successful memes, behaviour, throughout time. Think of it as a form of 'cannibalism', this sort of behaviour might be advantageous for an individual, the 'fittest' individual, but on the whole, this is not a successful adaptation for a species. A step away from this sort of 'cannibalism' and replacement with another adaptation

[Michael]

Firstly, to title this thread Science Fiction and then reveal that the question being posed is actually can nasty things reach the stars displays an astonishing lack in logical thought.

Brian Appleyard wrote a superb piece on the Science Fiction genre in the Sunday Times Cultural section a couple of months ago. Worth checking out.

The actually question, can nasty guys reach the stars is a bit like asking can America be discovered. It was. Native civilisations, North and South, were
all but destroyed, the peoples dispossessed.

Yet, at another level, I, for many reasons, believe that now, when mankind is at the point where he has achieved the understanding of the genome, can manipulate matter at the atomic level and is on the threshold of having the power of the gods, the epoch of his knowledge is coming to a bitter end.

Not only that, I suggest that you also know that. Much of the reasoning and the rationalisation that goes on here is just an attempt to believe that it isn't going to happen - isn't happening.

It is. A new epoch is upon us. It's not such a big deal. Seasons change. Blossoms fall from trees. If they didn't there would be no more trees.







Trees are wiser than all the capitalists in the world - they know there is not such thing as continuous growth. It cannot be sustained. But please don't think that my belief is merely based on capitalism. The causes of what is happening are manifold

The question we should be asking is, what will we carry into the new epoch, and how shall that be done - ?

Sometimes poetry can cut through the defenses of reason:

The Passing Day

The funeral bell,
Lost for words,
Tells its sorrow
In a single note
Repeated;
A dismal rain soaking
All below-
Except for the child
Who hears the music
And does not know
To mourn the passing day.

[Touk]

Doesn't all of this presuppose a common "universal" value system?
What of the assumption that all of this "intelligent life" exists on the same scale?
How about a concrete definition of "intellegent"? Dolphins can learn to communicate with us, but I've yet to hear of a human who can speak dolphin.

Whatever the truth is, it is my deepest, most sincere hope that all possible galactic "bad guys" look like John Travolta in Battlefield Earth, right down to the KISS platform shoes.....:hahaha:

[the_aphid]

Firstly, to title this thread Science Fiction and then reveal that the question being posed is actually can nasty things reach the stars displays an astonishing lack in logical thought.Well my apologies Michael. Perhaps I should have spent a little more time...selecting the title of the thread :rolleyes:Brian Appleyard wrote a superb piece on the Science Fiction genre in the Sunday Times Cultural section a couple of months ago. Worth checking out.Well I'd be glad to read it, maybe you could provide a link to this 'superb' piece of writing.The actually question, can nasty guys reach the stars is a bit like asking can America be discovered. It was. Native civilisations, North and South, were
all but destroyed, the peoples dispossessed.Well, in my opinion, interstellar travel and crossing an ocean are not exactly comparable. Also, perhaps you missed the fact that I pointed this exact argument out in my first post in this thread.

The reason I don't feel that this is an apt analogy, is that firstly the invading Europeans and the Natives were the same species, simply different cultures, that had been separated for merely a few dozen millenia. The Natives managed to find a path to the Americas long before the Europeans, so while the means of migration are different, this doesn't mean that the Europeans had developed an utterly unique and seemingly impossible feat (comparable to traveling the vast distances of space to other planets inhabited by intelligent life). Secondly, it implies that the Europeans were more 'advanced' than the Natives. Truly it was not the technology that wiped out the Natives of America, but it was the accidental introduction of disease, really this amounts to a form of unintentional biological warfare.Yet, at another level, I, for many reasons, believe that now, when mankind is at the point where he has achieved the understanding of the genome, can manipulate matter at the atomic level and is on the threshold of having the power of the gods, the epoch of his knowledge is coming to a bitter end.All the human genome project has accomplished -- while agreeably being an incredible step in the direction of advancement -- is to illustrate to us how little we understand about the genetic coding of biological life. Manipulating matter at the atomic level? Once again, we are only beginning to observe and form an understanding of the physical nature at the quantum level. Threshold of having the 'power of the gods'? Well if you are talking about ignorant and destructive power illustrated by our eradication of life on earth, it should be stressed that this 'power' will likely entail our demise as well. And if this is what you mean by the epoch of knowledge coming to a bitter end, then I would have to agree. :P
Not only that, I suggest that you also know that. Much of the reasoning and the rationalisation that goes on here is just an attempt to believe that it isn't going to happen - isn't happening.It is not just an attempt to force myself to believe that these things can't or aren't happening. I simply feel it is a logical progression of development. The destruction of cultures, the destruction of knowledge and teachings, eradication of understanding, it all negates the idea of 'advancement'. An idea, like the idea of natural selection posited by Darwin, is a very powerful piece of information. It ties us to nature and distances us from imagined fables like God. I believe in the concept of a universal morality, and I think that the idea of malevolent advancement is contradictory.It is. A new epoch is upon us. It's not such a big deal. Seasons change. Blossoms fall from trees. If they didn't there would be no more trees.I believe we are potentially at a turning point, that much I agree with. But this new epoch will depend on the human species developing a moral and benevolent demeanor, an understanding and respect for the biological diversity we are tied to and depend on, and the generosity and peaceful adaptations which humankind must adopt in order to survive the sharp bend in the road ahead and not be 'set back'.Trees are wiser than all the capitalists in the world - they know there is not such thing as continuous growth. It cannot be sustained. But please don't think that my belief is merely based on capitalism.Are you honestly implying that trees possess 'knowledge'? Also, I am not talking about continuous growth, or eternal existence. Likely there are limits on existence in this universe, and in the human form, however how long can humanity survive, what will it become, where will it go...I don't think we are limited to existence on this tiny globe called earth.

[Thomas Knierim]

Alien races are usually not nasty, except the Vogons of course, who have scheduled our planet for detonation in 2013 to make way for an intergalactic expressway. But it's not too late. We can file a petition directly with the Vogon administration or with Zaphod Beeblebrox's office.

Cheers, Thomas

[Touk]

Don't forget to bring a towel....

[the_aphid]

Alien races are usually not nasty, except the Vogons of course, who have scheduled our planet for detonation in 2013 to make way for an intergalactic expressway. But it's not too late. We can file a petition directly with the Vogon administration or with Zaphod Beeblebrox's office.:lol: And even if we fail to file a petition, we can always request some new fjords from Slartibartfast. :thumbsup:

[scameter]

Aphid, the reason there is less death from war in modern times, meaning within the last 8 years or so, is for one because most of the world's desire for competition and superiority is done in monetary business rather than warfare nowadays, and for two, because most of the murder in modern nations is done through crime, rather than warfare. But, think about it: why is there less war now, especially between civilized, rich countries, than there used to be? One reason: because we fought so much between the industrial revolution and the nineties, in wars such as the two world wars, wars involved in Africa and the Middle East, and the Cold War (which though it didn't involve actual killing, was a very important war for the modern era) that made possible the modern age. So, simply, the modern pacifism was made possible by killing, not by scientific enlightenment. After the Nazis were defeated, and the Communists were largely stopped or made so poor they were essentially obsolete like the Vietnamese and Cubans, the capitalist West and those it influences such as much of the Far East, especially Taiwan and Japan, could prosper. This has occurred throughout history. For instance, how was the US founded? Not by some idealism or pacifism or scientific enlightenment. No, it was founded for money, and required the slaughter of millions of Native Americans to accomplish it's victory.

And, Thomas: that sounds pretty cool. You should write sci-fi novels. :P

[j000han]

Myself and Steve Pinker (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/163) would disagree
>
The point he emphasizes is that the 'violence per capita', so to speak, has become greatly reduced in modern times. There are over 6 billion people in the world today, and only a very small percentage of these people have to worry about dying in violence and warfare. n

Why are so many people (so) wrong in something so important?
That’s the question according to Steven Pinker (http://www.ted.com/speakers/view/id/154).
His question to me apears to be based on the assumption that generally
people (man/women) tend to presume that the time we live in is more violent
and cruel then times before;
[there are more people dying today as a result of crime and warfare then there have been dying in the past]
In numbers quite likely when considering the death rate from say 1900>2008,
however *not* so in percentage.
It can be shown by evidence that statiscly speaking there is a lower murder rate
among humans then there was in previous times iow. we are getting more civilized.
and less barbarious..
From a socio-psycho-logical perspective/viewpoint/outlook
that question might be relevant to think over.
If I were a ‘timetraveller’ , I could check out the various social and environmental
conditions on which I’d arrive,.
I’d be able to observe male and and/or a female behaviour in various connotations..
Such would enable me to come to a fair judgment as to
what it would be like to be living in those days compared to now.
So..
in fairness conditions that are preset (in any particular timeframe) must be well taken into account before I can conclude wehter if the socalled human species of today
is more benevolent or less benevolent then it were in earlier days
or perhaps will be in the future.
Or perhaps more in a somewhat Budistic context the question refrased as
is there generally speaking more or less suffering today compared to our socalled
more barbarious past?
The refrasing of that question brings aboard the assumption that the answer well might be
today there is less suffering
so.. is it getting better then?
It would be intresting to make a calculation of the average costs that were needed to extinguish one enemy (man/woman)
Lets say in old Babylon, ancient China, old Egypt, Greece, Skandinavia, or England, France in the middleages don’t rule out the Netherlands.
Germany Russia America in times of ww1 to ww2 until today.
I’d say if it’s cheaper today then humanity is doing better,
if not then it is not doing better.
Of course that is nonsense because,
what would be needed is to calculate the overall costs of
security that is needed to keep barbarism in check
and how that justifies the payload on a particular population
iow. what a particular population must invest in its
government to provide security for its members
or if you will, maintaince of Law and order that has been agreed upon more or less to abide with.
What is behaviour outside that Law is deemed to be considered as criminal behaviour and as such can be prosecuted and punished..
One may wonder what are the parameters for healthy civilization?
If it means a decline of violence demonstrated by an extrapolation of the death rate as a result of that violence then indeed 2 million compared to 2 billion is a factor 1000 higher,
thus it was far worse in the ancient times from Steven’s perspective,
I am somewhat sceptical about this way of reasoning,
As I think the extrapolations made this way bear some unfairness in them.
Why?
In order to establish the actual death rate one must consider a population generated from
those who were actively engaged in participating/facilitating/supporting war- fare and those who áccidently perished or suffered as ‘innocent’ civilians as a side effect from war-fare and leave the rest of the then population out of the equation.

[the_aphid]

Aphid, the reason there is less death from war in modern times, meaning within the last 8 years or so, is for one because most of the world's desire for competition and superiority is done in monetary business rather than warfare nowadays, and for two, because most of the murder in modern nations is done through crime, rather than warfare.Come on now Scameter, 'modern times' extend further than the recent upset in Iraq. Also, if you watched the video that I provided the link to, you would see that while Pinker emphasizes the violence of warfare, he does not limit it to that, he also touches on other violence and crime, such as murder and rape. You are mistaken if you think that 'modern times' is the contrast of violence in 2008 to 1948, these both fall under a blurred stroke to be considered as 'modern times'. I insist you check out that video if you wish to understand the point I am supporting. That World War I, II, Vietnam, Pol Pot, Rwanda, Iraq, they all are examples of violence in modern times, and that YES, even within the past century violence is decreasing, and it isn't simply because that violence is shifting to greed, monetary greed is not exactly a recent development.

There is greater resistance from the majorities to go to war, there is a greater desire for peace. Just within the past couple of centuries we have seen slavery abolished, women finding equality, and homosexuals provided with acceptable human rights. The front against cruelty has gone beyond the human species as people are now also fighting for animal rights, protection and conservation of all natural resources, people are now defending the earth herself.

The trend is vividly illustrated over many millenia, not just over a century.

[scameter]

To be honest, I don't care enough to watch the video. I thought I'd make an effort with my last post, but you're going to think what you want and so am I, so whatever. You're more than likely right anyways. I spend very little thought on politics.

[Michael]

Thomas, thanks for the heads up on the highway.

Could we start a petition using TBV?

And it ties in with the Mayan calendar!!! There goes the neighborhood - unless we show those Vogons just how nasty we can be. A few billion signatures should do it, don't you think, Thomas?

ps. will you be our leader?

[Taeguk]

I quite frankly find it contradictory to think that any species capable of creating the technology to travel the universe would be a malevolent and destructing force to be reckoned with. I think that logically, any species that desired to develop this (hypothetical) technological ability, would first have to develop and adapt the more fundamental ethical and benevolent behaviour before successfully stepping out into space.

I'm afraid I don't see any logical connection between advanced technology and ethical behavior, aphid. It seems to me that technology is primarily a means of amplifying our natural abilities; that is to say, technology is essentially making the fulfillment of desire more efficient. It does not dictate what desire is. Give a violent, primitive group of people advanced technology and they will simply construct advanced weapons. Our ancestors bashed in their skulls with rocks, now we bash them in with ICBMs. We'd love to think we've "advanced" beyond their level, but have we?

For example, one enormous drain on current advancement of space exploration (here on Earth) is the budget that is being blown on international battles. The trillion dollar bill on the Iraq war is a huge step away from say, colonizing the moon. All the rocket fuel that is used to blow up buildings and civilians could have instead been launching us into space and furthering our knowledge and understanding of the universe.

I think what you are saying, aphid, is that our violent tendancies make us unable to cooperate enough to get us into space. From this, you conclude that in order to get into space, we would have to be able cooperate, and that means overcoming our violent tendancies.

However cooperation does not necessarily mean an end to violence; it simply requires a level of organization. If the Nazis had won World War 2 and established a world government, there might be a superficial amount of "peace" (i.e. all enemies would be wiped out or subdued) during which they could have created space technology. However, if they retained Hitler's dogmas, they would probably destroy any alien race they encountered.


My girlfriend and I got into a bit of an argument, me being the optimist, and her the pessimist, she seemed to feel that just like the invasion of the Americas and the 'conquering' of the aboriginals that were settled there, that humans are a perfect example of the possibility that there could be a species out there that would most certainly develop the malevolent nature of destroying life and selfishly sustaining themselves. However, I refuted by suggesting that with our very own efforts into space, we are already reaching out in a peaceful nature.

I'm afraid I share your girlfriend's pessimism :lol: I think it is simply too early to say that we are "reaching out in a peaceful nature". We have yet to encounter a planet with resources or the means to exploit them, let alone inhabitants. If the 16th century Spanish had landed on a small, uninhabited atol of the Americas and only stayed for a few weeks we might consider that to be a "peaceful reaching out" as well.

No, Conrad had it right; humanity has a "heart of darkness". And I think we will develop the technology to explore interstellar space before we conquer that.

[Michael]

Interesting, Taeguk. Beautifully articulate as always.

I must concur with most of the points you have made here. However, I must disagree with you on the issue of humanity's 'heart of darkness' and deeply saddened that you have found your way to such a view.

Perhaps it is not an absolute statement that you make, but an observation that may be qualified. I would like to think so.

I am a grumpy, difficult person, not happy, don't get with people (except a few) and piss most people off. I'm highly judgemental and can see the worst in people
very quickly.

But I will tell you, Taeguk, and everybody else reading this, that the heart of us, of everything is love. I have seen it. I have experienced it and not for myself, but for us all.

Rationality only gets us so far. The heart of darkness is in truth giving up all we know and entering a state of trust (I''m working on it).

On a more simple level I will tell you a story which was shown to me today. A man I know, a poet, 66, sells his books on the streets. Crippled, half mad, wholly sane. His own man. At 66 he has found love and he is loved. She wrote a small, simple, beautiful book about it. I read it today. She dedicated it as follows, 'for the little boy in you, who took the hand of the little girl in me.'

By such things, Taeguk, we are all redeemed.

And I also want you to sign the petition on the highway.

[the_aphid]

Give a violent, primitive group of people advanced technology and they will simply construct advanced weapons. Our ancestors bashed in their skulls with rocks, now we bash them in with ICBMs. We'd love to think we've "advanced" beyond their level, but have we?I believe that we have. Certainly violence has been changing alongside other technological progress, in essence the one committing violent acts are becoming distant and detached from the cruelty, however it is my opinion that it has all become more deplorable. Unlike previous human civilizations, we now have an unprecedented amount of knowledge about those previous human societies, and with each succession we are learning from our mistakes. Perhaps not quick enough, however this is the pitfall, if we fail to learn from our mistakes, we simply repeat them and self destruct.I think what you are saying, aphid, is that our violent tendancies make us unable to cooperate enough to get us into space. From this, you conclude that in order to get into space, we would have to be able cooperate, and that means overcoming our violent tendancies.Yes, but not just violent tendencies, but all destructive and wasteful tendencies as well. As I said previously this isn't just about war, and just about violence, but also about conservation. I think they all sort of go hand in hand.

Just to brush on this idea of the connection between conservation and violence, conflict in the world today very rarely arises from religious belief. It is true that battle lines are drawn along religious/political/racial lines, a means of dividing groups of people in half, them and us, but what primarily fuels these conflicts is natural resources. Resources like oil, water, food, land, etc. Just as an example, by investing and developing clean and renewable energy, much of the conflict in the middle east would be resolved.However cooperation does not necessarily mean an end to violence; it simply requires a level of organization. If the Nazis had won World War 2 and established a world government, there might be a superficial amount of "peace" (i.e. all enemies would be wiped out or subdued) during which they could have created space technology. However, if they retained Hitler's dogmas, they would probably destroy any alien race they encountered.I'm conflicted by this argument. <_< If Nazis had won the war...well, then there'd be an infinite number of ifs, ands and buts to argue about. What were the turning points of the war? What would the world be like today if they had won? Could Hitler have won? Or were they destined to lose from the get-go? This could provide a very long discussion in another thread, but if anything I think the fact that he didn't win simply emphasizes my point. The display of greed and cruelty, the gluttonous nature in which Hitler attempted to dominate the world, his declaration of war against the US (big mistake), all led -- in the end -- to an inevitable defeat. But this is just my opinion, and once again, I could certainly be wrong.I'm afraid I share your girlfriend's pessimism :lol: I think it is simply too early to say that we are "reaching out in a peaceful nature". We have yet to encounter a planet with resources or the means to exploit them, let alone inhabitants. If the 16th century Spanish had landed on a small, uninhabited atol of the Americas and only stayed for a few weeks we might consider that to be a "peaceful reaching out" as well.I can understand this outlook, as I have told my girlfriend, however I don't feel that I am being hopelessly optimistic. I knew that people would disagree with me, and you have provided a strong argument, however not strong enough to convince me. :unsure:No, Conrad had it right; humanity has a "heart of darkness". And I think we will develop the technology to explore interstellar space before we conquer that. Like Michael, I have to say that this almost seems out of character for you Taeguk. Agreed that people are most certainly capable of 'evil', and that this points to a 'heart of darkness', but what about all of the good in the world? Does this 'heart of darkness' exclude the possibility of the good and virtuous? I suppose this is where we will have to agree to disagree. I think if this 'heart of darkness' is potent enough, it will mean our demise, our self-destruction, and will inevitably prevent us from reaching the stars.

[Taeguk]

Interesting, Taeguk. Beautifully articulate as always.

I must concur with most of the points you have made here. However, I must disagree with you on the issue of humanity's 'heart of darkness' and deeply saddened that you have found your way to such a view.

Perhaps it is not an absolute statement that you make, but an observation that may be qualified. I would like to think so.

Thanks for the kind words, Michael. You are right that it was an observation that I probably should have qualified, not a universal or categorical statement.

The "heart of darkness" (as you might have guessed, I borrowed the name from Joseph Conrad) is certainly not all there is to humanity. In point of fact, it is not even really humanity's "heart" (although many think it is). A more accurate description might be a perennial temptation, a way of being in the world we are constantly prone to.


I am a grumpy, difficult person, not happy, don't get with people (except a few) and piss most people off. I'm highly judgemental and can see the worst in people
very quickly.

But I will tell you, Taeguk, and everybody else reading this, that the heart of us, of everything is love. I have seen it. I have experienced it and not for myself, but for us all.

Rationality only gets us so far. The heart of darkness is in truth giving up all we know and entering a state of trust (I''m working on it).

First of all, you are far too hard on yourself.

Secondly, I agree that the "heart" of humanity encompasses love, although for a number of reasons we found ourselves cut off from that heart---or more accurately, we think we are cut off from it, and feel as though we are.

I would also agree with you about the role of rationality and its limits. In some ways a sense of the limits of rationality informs my position on this issue and the issue of human "progress" in general.


And I also want you to sign the petition on the highway.


Oh, of course---the redemptive power of love is more than enough to warrant a signature. :thumbsup: Granted, I think the Vogon office is pretty far from earth, so we may need to hitch a ride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HHGG).....

Unlike previous human civilizations, we now have an unprecedented amount of knowledge about those previous human societies, and with each succession we are learning from our mistakes. Perhaps not quick enough, however this is the pitfall, if we fail to learn from our mistakes, we simply repeat them and self destruct.

The idea that "we are learning from our mistakes" is what I'm contesting. Certainly, we have more knowledge; what we are lacking, however, is wisdom. Unfortunately it would seem that mere knowledge is not enough.


Just to brush on this idea of the connection between conservation and violence, conflict in the world today very rarely arises from religious belief. It is true that battle lines are drawn along religious/political/racial lines, a means of dividing groups of people in half, them and us, but what primarily fuels these conflicts is natural resources. Resources like oil, water, food, land, etc. Just as an example, by investing and developing clean and renewable energy, much of the conflict in the middle east would be resolved.

I will certainly grant that if anything offers hope for the future, it is renewable energy. The problem is that it is becoming a race against time, as well as those (such as the Bush administration) who are not willing to admit the extent of the ecological crisis. By then it may be too late.

I'm conflicted by this argument. <_< If Nazis had won the war...well, then there'd be an infinite number of ifs, ands and buts to argue about.

Don't get too hung up on the particulars of the Nazi example; my point was just that it is possible that a fundamentally aggressive civilization may have the organization, intelligence and resources to expand into space.


I can understand this outlook, as I have told my girlfriend, however I don't feel that I am being hopelessly optimistic. I knew that people would disagree with me, and you have provided a strong argument, however not strong enough to convince me. :unsure:

Likewise, I understand your own outlook, and you've provided a pretty strong argument yourself. :)

Oddly enough I have a feeling despite our different outlooks on progress and technology, our political stances are probably relatively similiar :lol:

Like Michael, I have to say that this almost seems out of character for you Taeguk. Agreed that people are most certainly capable of 'evil', and that this points to a 'heart of darkness', but what about all of the good in the world? Does this 'heart of darkness' exclude the possibility of the good and virtuous? I suppose this is where we will have to agree to disagree. I think if this 'heart of darkness' is potent enough, it will mean our demise, our self-destruction, and will inevitably prevent us from reaching the stars.

I certainly agree there exists an equal potential for good---but I think historically we have shown ourselves to be far more susceptible to destructive ways of being. I'm also not convinced that humanity as a whole shows any signs of changing---but that's no reason to keep from trying, in my view. It does mean we should probably not get our hopes up, however.

[scameter]

Taeguk, I wish I had your confidence and articulation. I'm sure that you earned them. But you do have them, and they're great skills, especially in a discussion forum, to have. I always seem to lazy or too inarticulate to actually affect the opinions of anyone else with whom I'm discussing.

[the_aphid]

The idea that "we are learning from our mistakes" is what I'm contesting. Certainly, we have more knowledge; what we are lacking, however, is wisdom. Unfortunately it would seem that mere knowledge is not enough.Fair enough. I am not disputing the fact that humans might not be learning from past mistakes, although I do have confidence and optimistic hope for mankind. I am merely saying that the idea of technological advancement to the limits of interstellar potential -- without the ability to learn from your mistakes and understand the risk and detriment of a destructive nature -- seems contradictory and highly improbable.I will certainly grant that if anything offers hope for the future, it is renewable energy. The problem is that it is becoming a race against time, as well as those (such as the Bush administration) who are not willing to admit the extent of the ecological crisis. By then it may be too late.Agreed, and it might already be too late, that type of knowledge and understanding seems to only come from hindsight, and we have yet to see the collapse of society paralleled with the collapse of the environment on a global scale.Don't get too hung up on the particulars of the Nazi example; my point was just that it is possible that a fundamentally aggressive civilization may have the organization, intelligence and resources to expand into space.Alright, I'll agree with that. Perhaps I have been to hasty in my emphasis of the impossibility of violent space exploration, instead I should have stressed the extreme improbability of that scenario. I feel that even if a hypothetical Nazi regime had the organization and the longevity to reach space, it would still all be founded on some very weak roots. Also, like any controlling dictatorship, it would constantly be fighting the pressure of revolution and/or collapse. Also, it should be mentioned that there is bounds of difference between space settlement and interstellar travel. ;)

The reason I am so perplexed with the idea of violent and destructive interstellar space travel, is because I can't imagine it being a logical endeavor. It just appears to be such a high-risk with low-probability of success.

First, in order to travel the minimum of say 40 light years to another solar system that may contain a habitable planet, you'd either need to develop some fantastic method of transport (ie Warp Drive), or you would need to develop the technology of a 'closed ecological system'. In the first scenario, if you have a Warp Drive that can take you to distant solar systems in negligible time, then you would likely always have the ability to forgo destroying the supposed native inhabitants of that planet and instead travel to an uninhabited planet, unless you are just royal space bully. And in the latter scenario, if you have maintained the technology of a closed ecological system, then you would never be so desperate as to require eradicating a species in order to utilize their resources.

Second, let's just say our hypothetical Space Nazis made it into space, and they didn't develop either of these technologies because they were forced to set out in search of a new planet because they had destroyed the habitable nature of the earth. Without these technologies their chance of actually making it to another solar system, is in my (perhaps ignorant and naive) opinion, slim to none!

It's not that I am trying to convince anyone here, but rather I am just expressing what I feel is a ludicrous scenario. How could an intelligent species say, invent the technology that provides infinitely renewable power, or perhaps the methods of in-situ resource utilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Situ_Resource_Utilization), and yet still retain the desire to go and risk their lives battling it out with another species for resources they already claim for themselves???

:huh:Oddly enough I have a feeling despite our different outlooks on progress and technology, our political stances are probably relatively similiar :lol:I would have to agree :thumbsup:I certainly agree there exists an equal potential for good---but I think historically we have shown ourselves to be far more susceptible to destructive ways of being. I'm also not convinced that humanity as a whole shows any signs of changing---but that's no reason to keep from trying, in my view. It does mean we should probably not get our hopes up, however.But what is trying without hope? I will quote Spinoza on hope; " There is no hope unmingled with fear, and no fear unmingled with hope."

[Touk]

So I'm following this thread along, and I guess my two cents is this: success in such an endeavor (any endeavor) is less about what one thinks than the way one thinks. Almost 39 years ago we put humans on the moon, and yet today we still bury our trash in a hole in the ground. How caveman is that? To me this speaks volumes about our unwillingness to think passed our own self interest, on the larger scale necessary to embark on such missions. We refuse to approach even the most basic issues in a long term, committed manner. Our way of thinking is reliant on short cuts. We want instant gratification that doesn't require anything of us personally or we're not gonna bother. This is so true of us that it really doesn't matter what the topic is, its still true; Povery, Pollution, Urban Sprawl, Population Explosion, Unemployment, Starving Kids in Africa, etc, etc, etc....

I hope this didn't sound like an outta bounds tangent... thats just the way I see it.

[Akamu]

Taeguk, I wish I had your confidence and articulation. I'm sure that you earned them. But you do have them, and they're great skills, especially in a discussion forum, to have. I always seem to lazy or too inarticulate to actually affect the opinions of anyone else with whom I'm discussing.

I don't think Taeguk sets out to influence opinions. Rather, he states his own for the sake of healthy discussion. If our goal in discussion is to only impress our opinions upon the minds of others, we will forever be frustrated...not to mention that this ambition is somewhat egoistic and self-satisfying in nature. I'm not implying that this is your goal; the idea just seemed important to express and your comment made me think about it.

On topic: I am ever trying to find balance between two extremes. At first, I thought I was going to side with Aphid. I felt optimism for humans and also agreed that we could never truly advance until we became more or less peaceful in nature. To me it was obvious that given such advanced technology, we would simply have destroyed ourselves long before we ever made it to the stars. But I have to admit to myself that I don't see why a tainted race couldn't make it to the stars. Our number 1 instinct is to survive, and if survival means extending our reach into space, then it will be done. Just because we are still trashing our planet and torturing, murdering, and maiming each other doesn't mean we can't make the jump. But I also don't believe a race with habits such as these will last very long away from home. I think the question is should we make that jump considering the state our home is in right now? Abandon our trashed planet in search of a more suitable habitat? Now there is no distinguishing us from locusts. It can't last.

[scameter]

Touk, one word: money.

[Touk]

You know Scameter, I think I could almost enjoy the ride to Hell if it was just $$$, but anymore I'm starting to think that its laziness.

[scameter]

Oh no, people love work, most people are only lazy in that they want to make money fast. The reason that things like better environmentalism, better technology, a faster and more advanced space program, and peace still haven't been achieved is because most people, from the poor to the rich, are more concerned with money, for themselves, than they are those objectives, however good they are. As long as the system of government they live in lets them make their own money and doesn't take too much of it, they're cool.

[ABrutalKind]

I feel like I am jumping into a thread that I know nothing about but I just have to talk about money since my girlfriend and I just had a great discussion on it. I was just wondering if you enjoy the irony of money as much as I do? The pursuit of money drives everything yet money itself has no hard value it is only worth as much as the value we put on it. So essentially we value money simply because we value it.

[scameter]

Indeed, it is ironic. To me, people often talk about the origins of the evil of the world, from religion to hatred to discrimination, but I personally think the origin of the evils of the world, and of the limitations we voluntarily put on ourselves in life, derive from money. As I said, money represents abstract things, and people worship those things.

[Trevor]

Indeed, it is ironic. To me, people often talk about the origins of the evil of the world, from religion to hatred to discrimination, but I personally think the origin of the evils of the world, and of the limitations we voluntarily put on ourselves in life, derive from money. As I said, money represents abstract things, and people worship those things.

I think that another origin of evil in the world is the overwhelming desire or necessity to seek/find the approval of others.

[Smurf]

Where do you think money comes from? We always blame something that is seemingly separate from our basic nature.
I don't think that greed is evil, but I htink that the ultimate practise of it regardless of restraint is unwise. As is the case with any strain of human nature. But, if we select and remove certain parts of our very lives then we are removing those very forces that compel us to want things, compel us to live...
Is that evil?