Alien encounter... will we be doomed like the Natives of the Americas?

[NotHardUp1]

^How very jaded.

There is nothing in Hebrew or Christian scriptures that proclaims Earth as the sole creation of God. The Writ is silent to the possibilities of other realms, as planets were unknown to the writers as planets we know today.

The Writ is not some missive writ on gold sheets from beyond: it is a series of "revelations" penned by men many centuries ago.

The Roman Catholic Church represents the largest population of any one sect of Christianity and it has no teaching that life is unique to Earth.

What a ridiculous straw man argument to posit how billions of people will incorporate your hypothetical visitation. Now who has the fantastic belief system?

 

[Telstra]

^How very jaded.

There is nothing in Hebrew or Christian scriptures that proclaims Earth as the sole creation of God. The Writ is silent to the possibilities of other realms, as planets were unknown to the writers as planets we know today.

The Writ is not some missive writ on gold sheets from beyond: it is a series of "revelations" penned by men many centuries ago.

The Roman Catholic Church represents the largest population of any one sect of Christianity and it has no teaching that life is unique to Earth.

What a ridiculous straw man argument to posit how billions of people will incorporate your hypothetical visitation. Now who has the fantastic belief system?

Human .....

 

[Rickrock]

Presumably, aliens who came here would be advanced enough to be aware of any destabilizing consequences and would take care to mitigate those consequences.

Stardreamer's #8 post made some good points.

I also like Mikey3000's #4 post. I think that aliens might have already been here. I have been mulling this over in my mind for several years that perhaps God sent aliens here to guide us and we called them angels. Although I don't know this I am leaning in favor of it being so.

 

[evanrick]

I don't believe so. It depends on their mission. But, do you honestly believe humans wouldn't take advantage of an alien culture if they could? Look at our history, humans are awful things, and progress is slow here on Earth.

What have humans done other than further our own 'agenda'?

Have we ever cared about the Earth that we made our home?

Its not until a planetary crisis like climate change and anti-biotic resistance do humans SLOWLY realize that those are threats to the human agenda, and THEN we react to it, not before. Thats classic human behavior.

I doubt an alien civilization would make the trip across the universe just to conquer us, but they just might destroy us just so we don't pose a threat in the future, not only to ourselves and others, but to the entire galaxy.

The first alien 'encounter' will be between humans of divergent genetic evolution, its vastly more likely than contact with a completely different intelligent species.

 

[Stardreamer]

I don't believe so. It depends on their mission. But, do you honestly believe humans wouldn't take advantage of an alien culture if they could? Look at our history, humans are awful things, and progress is slow here on Earth.

What have humans done other than further our own 'agenda'?

Have we ever cared about the Earth that we made our home?

Its not until a planetary crisis like climate change and anti-biotic resistance do humans SLOWLY realize that those are threats to the human agenda, and THEN we react to it, not before. Thats classic human behavior.

I doubt an alien civilization would make the trip across the universe just to conquer us, but they just might destroy us just so we don't pose a threat in the future, not only to ourselves and others, but to the entire galaxy.

The first alien 'encounter' will be between humans of divergent genetic evolution, its vastly more likely than contact with a completely different intelligent species.

The Amerind cultures took as much advantage of the European settlers as they could. The first fighting the Pilgrims had with Native Americans was when the local tribe that had befriended them essentially enlisted them and their guns to help them defeat one of their rival tribes. It didn't alter the outcome of the blending of the cultures though, it is as you say the way Humans are.

 

[Stardreamer]

If their technology is such that they could wipe us out, they could. But if they want us for something, what would that be? Pets? Slaves? What?

The Spaniards were interested in (1) Gold and loot to fuel their war with "Ye Olde Englande" (2) Missionaries were there to harvest souls for Jesus.

The natives, the Maya, Aztecs and other societies there at the time of the Spanish conquestadors had unfortunately a tradition about fair skinned (compared to them) deities which they mistakenly took as these invading Europeans. Not all the natives thought that they were, and that's why the conquest was not a quick affair.

So unless aliens are coming to demand resources from us, or have their own religious evangelists, we're really basically down to one of sport and aggression - or if they're high minded, friendship and the sharing of knowledge.

Who knows.

If they bring an expedition large enough to establish a colony, their goal is likely either obtaining resources or living space. Which was what most of the European Colonies were about. The natives were a secondary concern, except for the clerics who wanted to convert them. They were largely to be ignored or befriended if possible, used as a resource or eliminated if a threat.

 

[gsdx]

their goal is likely either obtaining resources or living space. Which was what most of the European Colonies were about.

Perhaps later, but in the beginning, it was all about making money. Gold, silver, diamonds and other gems, spices, and even beaver pelts. It was all about the money.

 

[peeonme]

Would they be illegal aliens or undocumented extraterrestrials?

 

[Willie Boy]

Perhaps later, but in the beginning, it was all about making money. Gold, silver, diamonds and other gems, spices, and even beaver pelts. It was all about the money.

Yes, the obtaining of resources. Didn't matter that there were already people there who had first rights.

 

[Stardreamer]

Perhaps later, but in the beginning, it was all about making money. Gold, silver, diamonds and other gems, spices, and even beaver pelts. It was all about the money.

That is typically what we call "resources".

 

[Stardreamer]

Yes, the obtaining of resources. Didn't matter that there were already people there who had first rights.

Of course because that what Humans with a colonial mindset do. Native Property rights is a fairly new concept world wide. Back then the argument was more whether the natives really counted as Human much less whether they had property rights. And if you think that is bad, it gets even worse if you dealing with another species which is what extraterrestrials will be. Remember most wars, despite whatever window dressing like religion is hung on it for justification, are fought over resources.

 

[gsdx]

That is typically what we call "resources".

Then it's 'resources' for the few, not the many. I consider 'resources' to be necessary things, not just items to make someone rich.

Colonisation became expansion for the sole purpose of exploiting a land or a people. The Congo wasn't colonised for its climate. It was colonised to exploit its ivory. India wasn't colonised for its culture. It was colonised to exploit its spices.

Colonisation was exploitation. If there was nothing to exploit, there was no colonisation.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Of course because that what Humans with a colonial mindset do. Native Property rights is a fairly new concept world wide. Back then the argument was more whether the natives really counted as Human much less whether they had property rights. And if you think that is bad, it gets even worse if you dealing with another species which is what extraterrestrials will be. Remember most wars, despite whatever window dressing like religion is hung on it for justification, are fought over resources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_doctrine

The Discovery doctrine is a concept of public international law expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions, most notably Johnson v. M'Intosh in 1823. Chief Justice John Marshall justified the way in which colonial powers laid claim to lands belonging to foreign sovereign nations during the Age of Discovery. Under it, title to lands lay with the government whose subjects travelled to and occupied a territory whose inhabitants were not subjects of a European Christian monarch. The doctrine has been primarily used to support decisions invalidating or ignoring aboriginal possession of land in favor of colonial or post-colonial governments.

Note: the rights to these societies to their land and territory was acknowledged to be sovereign. That wasn't disputed. It just arbitrarily said the only sovereignty you had to respect in case of conflict was that of Christian peoples under Christian governments.

This doctrine continues to be the basic legal justification of all landholding in the Americas.

 

[Stardreamer]

Then it's 'resources' for the few, not the many. I consider 'resources' to be necessary things, not just items to make someone rich.

Colonisation became expansion for the sole purpose of exploiting a land or a people. The Congo wasn't colonised for its climate. It was colonised to exploit its ivory. India wasn't colonised for its culture. It was colonised to exploit its spices.

Colonisation was exploitation. If there was nothing to exploit, there was no colonisation.

Which pretty much fits exactly with what I'm saying. A resource by its very nature is something that is exploitable. And yes you don't go to the cost and effort of colonization without some benefit for that effort. Even the groups seeking to set up colonies for living space or freedom purposes were financed by folks wanting to use them to obtain some return on that investment from the colony.

 

[Stardreamer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_doctrine

The Discovery doctrine is a concept of public international law expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions, most notably Johnson v. M'Intosh in 1823. Chief Justice John Marshall justified the way in which colonial powers laid claim to lands belonging to foreign sovereign nations during the Age of Discovery. Under it, title to lands lay with the government whose subjects travelled to and occupied a territory whose inhabitants were not subjects of a European Christian monarch. The doctrine has been primarily used to support decisions invalidating or ignoring aboriginal possession of land in favor of colonial or post-colonial governments.

Note: the rights to these societies to their land and territory was acknowledged to be sovereign. That wasn't disputed. It just arbitrarily said the only sovereignty you had to respect in case of conflict was that of Christian peoples under Christian governments.

This doctrine continues to be the basic legal justification of all landholding in the Americas.

This is also after the fact legal dickering, it doesn't alter the fact that European nations were carving up portions of the new world for their use before they even knew if natives lived there, all with the blessings of the Church. This is really lovely legal window dressings to as the article says 'justify' the Age of Discovery after the fact. Sort of a religious based imminent Domain, it's yours until we say it's ours. They can't very well in 1823 suddenly invalidate all the legal holdings in the US. It's a prettier version of the right of conquest.

 

[xbuzzerx]

This is also after the fact legal dickering, it doesn't alter the fact that European nations were carving up portions of the new world for their use before they even knew if natives lived there, all with the blessings of the Church. This is really lovely legal window dressings to as the article says 'justify' the Age of Discovery after the fact. Sort of a religious based imminent Domain, it's yours until we say it's ours. They can't very well in 1823 suddenly invalidate all the legal holdings in the US. It's a prettier version of the right of conquest.

It was in response to:

Native Property rights is a fairly new concept world wide.

It's not. See Council of Salamanca, various other examples. The moral debate around personhood and humanity of Native peoples who were being killed or displaced by force began virtually at the same time colonization did.

It's a total whitewash to say people didn't even think Natives were human and only worried about the bad things they did way after the fact, or that only modern people look back at it and make these concepts up.

 

[Stardreamer]

It was in response to:



It's not. See Council of Salamanca, various other examples. The moral debate around personhood and humanity of Native peoples who were being killed or displaced by force began virtually at the same time colonization did.

It's a total whitewash to say people didn't even think Natives were human and only worried about the bad things they did way after the fact, or that only modern people look back at it and make these concepts up.

I stand corrected then on native property rights, at least as reflected in legal doctrine. It still seems to have been a principle more commonly observed in its violation.

To the subject at hand it is of little relevance as we have no idea what the cultural and legal norms for our unknown alien visitors would be.

 

[Agent Provocateur]

I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist, and I like to the the "spark" that led to human consciousness was intergalactic intervention. I'm powerfully curious to know what humans were like before it happened, but it seems we'll never know. Although one day we might, if technology improves enough to be able to simulate multiverses, which would also bring to light the question about our universe being a computer simulation by a hyper-advanced race.

Yeah, I'm a little nutty, so what. We all like nuts here.

 

[medic1]

The possibility of other Carbon based races in the Universe, is in my opinion a given. Trillions of planets dictates this maxim.

As to their intention, who knows?

Theories and opinions are like arseholes, most people have them.

Do i believe the encounter would be detrimental? Yes i sadly do. Human nature in general would predict this.

As for our World Leaders, i am quite certain that they are withholding information. Reverse engineering springs to mind.

 

[pat grimshaw]

...Yeah, I'm a little nutty, so what....

Fair enough. I accept you.