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.

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 (which btw they are currently filming the remake 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?

[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]

Originally Posted by scameter

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

What leads you to conclude this? Myself and Steve Pinker 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.....

[the_aphid]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well my apologies Michael. Perhaps I should have spent a little more time...selecting the title of the thread

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.

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