• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stephen Hawking takes a hard line on aliens

I wonder who would be more infested with disease. Us, or the aliens.

we'd probable kill each other off...unless they have similar microbes (for some reason I couldn't imagine).
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
The 20th century was the most deathtastic century in human history, and last I checked we (humanity) have been bombing the bejeezus out of everything that walks since I've been born.
Click to expand...

More deaths strictly related to the technology available. When we go to war these days (as in the "war on terror" we are currently in), we go into a country, try to convert them to democracy (instead of Christianity), tear their cities down, and rebuild them, then have soldiers picking up the trash and putting sheetrock up. We try to have a war without really hurting anyone. A nice clean war.
 
lizzie said:
Neither- just different organisms.
Click to expand...

what I meant was, who would hold the biological advantage in the unintended biological warfare that would ensue.

(As in the case of Indians vs. the Europeans, the europeans were clearly much more acquinted with--and immuned to--more varieties of infection...to their advantage)
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
More deaths strictly related to the technology available.
Click to expand...

Which makes my point exactly.

lizzie said:
When we go to war these days (as in the "war on terror" we are currently in), we go into a country, try to convert them to democracy (instead of Christianity), tear their cities down, and rebuild them, then have soldiers picking up the trash and putting sheetrock up. We try to have a war without really hurting anyone. A nice clean war.
Click to expand...

Do you really think you're the first person in human history who's claimed that violence that came from your side was more justified or more civilized? Jump ahead a couple hundred years and people will remember our wars exactly how we remember wars from a couple hundred years before us: a whole buncha' killing happened.

We're a statistic.
 
other said:
what I meant was, who would hold the biological advantage in the unintended biological warfare that would ensue.

(As in the case of Indians vs. the Europeans, the europeans were clearly much more acquinted with--and immuned to--more varieties of infection...to their advantage)
Click to expand...

Unless the civilization of the invading alien force was interplanetary and interspecies, I can't think of why it would be safe to assume that they would be acquainted with more viruses than we would be.
 
other said:
what I meant was, who would hold the biological advantage in the unintended biological warfare that would ensue.

(As in the case of Indians vs. the Europeans, the europeans were clearly much more acquinted with--and immuned to--more varieties of infection...to their advantage)
Click to expand...

Ahhh- interesting question.

It's hard to say. Depends on how the agents were dispersed from both sides, and how capable each side was of correctly analyzing the contagion and coming up with an antidote of some kind. My guess is that neither would be highly advantaged over the other.
 
Cardinal said:
Which makes my point exactly.
Click to expand...

But there has been a change in perspective, especially over the past 50 or so years, at least in this country and most of Europe.

Cardinal said:
Do you really think you're the first person in human history who's claimed that violence that came from your side was more justified or more civilized?
.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that violence from my side is justified or civilized? I was being facetious and pointing out the stupidity of trying to fight a "nice" war. That war is a joke imo, and we are fools to be there.

Cardinal said:
We're a statistic.
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah, I realize that.
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
But there has been a change in perspective, especially over the past 50 or so oyears, at least in this country and most of Europe.



Where did I say that violence from my side is justified or civilized? I was being facetious and pointing out the stupidity of trying to fight a "nice" war. That war is a joke imo, and we are fools to be there.



Uh, yeah, I realize that.
Click to expand...

Your sarcasm was not obvious to me. It is now. However, as a result of your sarcasm I'm unclear on what your position is.
 
Cardinal said:
Your sarcasm was not obvious to me. It is now. However, as a result of your sarcasm I'm unclear on what your position is.
Click to expand...

My position on war, or my position on how evolving contributes to a less violent tendency in humans (or aliens)? Or did I miss your point altogether?
 
lizzie said:
My position on war, or my position on how evolving contributes to a less violent tendency in humans (or aliens)? Or did I miss your point altogether?
Click to expand...

The latter. My point was that history as recent as the twentieth century demonstrates that evolution has done nothing to calm our violent tendencies. However, my statements about the degree of our violence gained a big "no duh" from you, so I don't understand your position anymore.
 
Cardinal said:
Unless the civilization of the invading alien force was interplanetary and interspecies, I can't think of why it would be safe to assume that they would be acquainted with more viruses than we would be.
Click to expand...

All assuming our biologies would be similar enough to allow the spread of disease.

I imagine that, even if the contact was peaceful, within a few generations (amybe more?) and some microbal mutation/adaption there would be major pandemic and attrition for both species.
 
other said:
All assuming our biologies would be similar enough to allow the spread of disease.

I imagine that, even if the contact was peaceful, within a few generations there would be major pandemic and attrition for both species.
Click to expand...

It seems fair to assume that two worlds of equal variety would create relatively equal havoc for each other.
 
I think the take home point is that we utterly at the mercy of any civilization with the technology to fly to earth. Forget fighting back, we could easily be wiped out from orbit without any chance of stopping it. Assuming things turn hostile, the best strategy would be to surrender and then try and reverse engineer some of their technology. Any culture with interstellar travel probably wouldn't need to pillage earth for resources, but war is rarely logical. Peace at all costs is the only solution for survival.
 
Cardinal said:
It seems fair to assume that two worlds of equal variety would create relatively equal havoc for each other.
Click to expand...

If they were truly advanced, that might be a reason for them to avoid us at all costs...or to spend time collecting controled samples of our diseases to develop ways to counteract them or develop immunity within themselves before contact. then they could feign friendship and within a century or so most of us (and other earth-life) would croak from exotic-mutated alien diseases.

then we'd be screwed.
 
Last edited:
other said:
If they were truly advanced, that might be a reason for them to avoid us at all costs...or to spend time collecting controled samples of our diseases to develop ways to counteract them or develop immunity within themselves before contact. then they could feign friendship and within a century or so most of us (and other earth-life) would croak from exotic-mutated alien diseases.

then we'd be screwed.
Click to expand...

Yup.

.........
 
Cardinal said:
The latter. My point was that history as recent as the twentieth century demonstrates that evolution has done nothing to calm our violent tendencies. However, my statements about the degree of our violence gained a big "no duh" from you, so I don't understand your position anymore.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are right that as recent as the twentieth century has seen much killing. The numbers reflect our ability to kill more people with less manpower (the technology). That being said, some of us have reached the point that we see the futility and horrors of war and have changed on a psychological level (our perceptions). I would think this is due to the technology on the information side of the issue. We can turn on the telelvision or the computer, and know pretty quickly what is happening anywhere on the globe. Before this information was readily available, people had a "disconnected" sense of war. This has brought about a change in attitude toward war itself. It has caused us to look at the real effects of conflict and we take it personally. In effect, the same technology that has allowed us to kill so many people has also allowed us to take it to heart and changed our psyche toward war.
I still have firm convictions that humans do have a psychological love of war that is deep-seated, but I think that we are able to perceive the effects in a way that has made us start to reason more and not be quite as reactive as we used to be. We have a long way to go, and it may well be that this current pacifist trend is just a temporary phase due to the relative prosperity we have seen in the second half of the 20th century. We'll see.
My primary concern is that our tendencies toward pacifism (primarily a Western thing) will result in our demise because we will become so idealistic and pacifist that we will be unable to defend ourselves. (I'm talking long-term here;))
My personal position on war is to defend, not offend.
 
why can't aliens be like us, wide eyed and bushy tailed about meeting another intelligent species for the first time, the odds are if they're flying through space, they'd have enough resources to last 'em perpetually, or ways of producing more when they're on the long dark highway between intergalactic truck stops, so they wouldn't need to strip mine earth, and would just be interested in communicating.
 
If the universe is teeming with humanoid, spacefaring, sapient life, cross-species conflict is probably inevitable, but I don't think inter-planetary wars are very likely. War is a logistically difficult process. Combine that with space travel and colonization, two other logistically difficult processes, and you have a virtual impossibility on your hands.

Even for a species with FTL travel, the resources, technology, and planning required to subjugate humans and colonize Earth would be enormous. If you have the ability to do any of those things, it would be much, much, much easier to find an uninhabited world like Mars and terraform it. It is always good for mineral resources, and you can spec it to fulfill other needs; surely a civilization with FTL travel has the tech to make Mars-like soil suitable for farming. If you planet is too arid, surely it is easier to tap water from asteroids and other chunks of ice floating in your solar system than to go to war over Earth's limited freshwater supplies. Basically, any species with the tech and motivation to go to war must surely already possess the ability to resolve their situation peacefully, and more economically.

Besides that, species capable of interstellar travel are probably combining their colonization efforts with population control and highly refined recycling programs.
 
Re: Stephen Hawking takes a hard line on aliens
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree.

If the universe is teeming with humanoid, spacefaring, sapient life, cross-species conflict is probably inevitable, but I don't think inter-planetary wars are very likely. War is a logistically difficult process. Combine that with space travel and colonization, two other logistically difficult processes, and you have a virtual impossibility on your hands.

Even for a species with FTL travel, the resources, technology, and planning required to subjugate humans and colonize Earth would be enormous. If you have the ability to do any of those things, it would be much, much, much easier to find an uninhabited world like Mars near your own planet and terraform it.

Such a planet is always good for mineral resources, and you can spec it to fulfill other needs; surely a civilization with FTL travel has the tech to make Mars-like soil suitable for farming. If you planet is too arid, surely it is easier to tap water from asteroids and other chunks of ice floating in your solar system than to go to war over Earth's limited freshwater supplies. Basically, any species with the tech and motivation to go to war must surely already possess the ability to resolve their situation peacefully, and more economically.

Besides that, given historical trends on Earth, species capable of interstellar travel are probably combining their colonization efforts with population control and highly refined recycling programs, further reducing the motivation to go to war.
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
Hawking is right. If anyone is "out there" and can come here, we had better hope they are benevolent or we are screwed.
Click to expand...

Yep, they won't be coming here for a hug. LOL
 
Stephen Hawking said, "We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet."

Good call.
 
Orion said:
Stephen Hawking said, "We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet."

Good call.
Click to expand...

Whichever is the case, whether we are evolving in a positive and productive manner, or are evolving to the the point that we will meet our destruction, one or the other will happen. I personally believe the former is the more likely. Evolution of a species is so gradual and takes several setbacks and starts, but over the long haul I think true progress is made. Taking just a couple of points in time, chosen to make a point, is misleading. Evolution takes many adjustments and changes in intellect, emotional state, and action. We never can see the whole picture by looking at a century, a millenium, or an era.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom