Aliens relationship with humans

Post Reply New Topic

Stephen Hawking thinks humans and aliens cannot get along and if we encountered any they would be like the ones in the movie Alien. At one time I thought had a point but then changed my mind unless the species is inherently psychopathic and evolved to destroy other species but most species do not evolve to entirely wipe out others just by mere aggression. Humans have behaved this way in the past but there are factions that question the wisdom of it and they win out so we can guess, perhaps, the same occurs in other sophisticated species and they would have evolved out of aggressive, pointless destruction like humans are attempting to do now.

Also, I think once a species conquers travel through space, they will reach the conclusion space is so vast and filled with so many resources, there is no reason to ever harm another species because there is always more "space." If they don't like something, they will just travel a few million miles and that's that. No need to bring out the big guns.

Tell me your thoughts.

we exploit a lot of other species already, I dont see why someone who saw us in the same way we see cows wouldnt treat us in the same way

When we think of aliens landing on our planet the immediate thought isn't we should eat them for dinner so if they possess the advanced skills needed to navigate space, they would have grown past the desire to eat species they see as having potential. Humans eat what they consider lesser, not other primates so much although it does happen. It's just not widespread consumption of primates. Most even frown upon eating dolphins and whales but it isn't universally accepted it is wrong to eat them.

It's possible,
wot if the aliens were insectoid or some other weird thing

Ah, silly little scientists having little to no idea how human empathy and emotions work for the survival of the species, if and a big if, if they even fully experience human empathy and emotions themselves, simply as they spend much of their life living a life of mechanical cognition that science now shows does repress the brain pathway for human empathy.

And yes, withers it away, if mechanical cognition is used too much to the exclusion of the empathy/social cognition pathway of the brain.

The only reason humans are here today as social animals in the numbers we have is because of one of the greatest potentials for empathy AND COOPERATION among social animals.

If, and that's a big if, if any living species ever cooperates to the point of leaving their planet and visiting another one IT is A BUILT IN guarantee that they could love each other enough not to kill each other off first including the empathic connection to nature as well, not to kill the other species and overall planet of their home; yes, they would almost have to be highly empathic caring creatures to even possibly get to our front door as is.

Similar limitations of John Nash's game theory that he later admitted was he didn't understand human emotions or experience them fully so his theory was faulty as emotions are truly at core, per science now, of what emotes all human activity including what some folks describe as logic.

Not likely Mr. Hawking will do that, at this point, in his position as is, as with his disability he may have little experience of the full range of emotions of human at all, at this point, as that is regulated through the cerebellum and movement, which sadly is his disability in life.

He's thinking MORE like a dominating chimpanzee instead of his closer cousin the PEACEFUL EASY LOVING Bonobo PRIMATE when he says this, for whatever reason.

PERHAPS he should move out of his specialized area, and do a little Zoology 101 with his primate cousins, to get a bigger view of the Universe, starting at home.

That's the problem with science, specialization, and the blinders it does bring, per what can be a tapestry of understanding rather than a narrow view of what is possible.

Hawking is being completely Darwinian about his thoughts on Aliens but if we look at how humans act, it simply isn't Darwinian, so perhaps Aliens flinging themselves into space are like us, not completely Darwinian, either. So, they might not feel a need to destroy or harm other species they encounter. They would have their own food sources so they would not need us for energy. They would, I believe, want to help us but alas, factions would exist among the aliens who would not want to just like there is so much controversy over life here on earth. Sometimes, the helpful aliens would win out. Other times, not.

What about European Exploration and the New World. Space Age version of that happening to us except we're the Indians would probably happen.

It's possible they would be looking for a new home and want to colonize earth, but I find that scenario extremely unlikely. If such a species did exist and made it out into the galaxy, they would simply look for the easiest targets on which to land and would not risk being massacred themselves or exposure to all kinds or pathogens. I think they look for places that are as simple as possible, kind of like what was in Interstellar where they can perhaps terraform or set up some kind of base. They look for bare bone but inhabitable planets or moons. They look for ones with some kind of core that is capable of generating that important magnetic field. They do not necessarily look for planets teaming with life for obvious reasons. It's just easier to exist in a simpler place if you know what you are doing.

Or, they could just be evolved enough to live in space itself and not need a planet or moon at all.

Altruism and cooperation are Darwinian too.

The Europeans weren't looking for a new place to settle, they set out looking for a trade route to Asia. They got sick of traveling around Africa and they had no idea that North and South America were in the way if you went the opposite direction. That's why they're called Indians sometimes, because Columbus thought he was in India, not the Caribbeans. In the end the Europeans settled and then stuff happened that was some bad stuff but I guess yeah that was some Darwinian stuff. Idk, people are animals, and aliens could be thought of as more advanced people/animals so, similiar stuff could happen. Though if they're going through what we're going through now, most likely we'd be allowed to live because the aliens would be split on what to do with us and nothing would get done (Please note I'm not a Democrat).

I think there could be a chance that the aliens would be some sort of transcendent or even omnipresent life forms, though that brings up more reasons of why would these beings just have us here like this.

Hmmmm...

How can you deny much more than just the fittest humans survive? Many people who are not the fittest do as well and they pass their genes on to their offspring. This is where Darwin fails the humanity test. He works better when everything that exists is at the mercy of nature but humans have overcome this, somewhat. When humans interfere in the natural order they do mess up Darwin's law as well though. When humans get involved, more than just the fittest pass their genes to their offspring. This is not Darwin's Law.

Some of the Europeans were or they would not have created colonies like Jamestown.

I do agree with you about the aliens not always knowing what to do about life on earth, if anything. They would most likely have various groups with different opinions and they could all win out at various times so they could help one time, not the other and they might change their minds about whom they help, too, or be divided on it as well.

Darwin's Law isn't exactly the fittest survive and the rest die off instantly. It's a process. It's more of a localized, as well as randomized, thing. A species that is suited to a certain environment more than another has the highest chance of survival in that region is a more accurate description of Darwin's Law. People are a bit different because we can change our environments while most creatures cannot (and those that can can't to the extent we can) so we can help others of our own species that aren't doing well. However multiple studies were done across a large range of 'subjects' and there is quite a bit of difference to the point where really, only the best do well. If you also took Humanity and had a large disaster, really only the strong (and lucky) ones will survive. At least, once the disaster is over. We're talking aftermath and rebuilding here.

Physical fitness is just one form of fitness.

I don't much like the terms "Darwin's law" since understanding of evolution and natural selection has evolved so much since that time.
Altruism is useful because of kin selection. Kin selection means that if I help my relatives survive who mostly share my DNA, I don't need to have offspring myself to spread my family's genes. It's enough for my extended family or my tribe to survive. Humans are all very closely related anyway, more than most other animals.
Ants and bees are extreme examples of this, I think the worker ants/bees are infertile anyway, but they pass on their DNA by making sure their queen survives and produces offspring.
And fittest doesn't mean they have to be the best at whatever their survival strategy is. They just need to be around to pass on genes. For example: don't be the slowest antilope of the herd. All the others are fine. All of them are "fittest".

Totally caught me there, though I thought we were just talking about the beginning aspects.