First Contact

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It will always be majority rules, it always has.

In many cases minority rules through a well trained, brain washed military.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Let's assume that there is a Galactic Civilization, but not necessarily one that is "organized into packs".

One universal question that has always interested me is "The rights of the individual vs. the needs and rights of the many."

Or in other words, Government vs. The Solo Being.

When (and if) we were to make first contact with said civiliza ...[text shortened]... stranger" on the village door mats.

What do you think?

Mike

Rights are things individuals can do or claim which are granted to them by gangs of others. If I don't live in a gang, no one can tell me what my rights are or aren't. I can do anything the Laws of Science allow.

As soon as a Solo Being grants rights to another Solo Being -- e.g. "I won't shoot you if you don't shoot me" -- they have formed a pact or society. Inside that society, each of the Solo Beings has rights. Outside that society, neither has any rights.

Individuals or groups of individuals from our planet may one day be admitted to Galactic Society -- if there are any such. We will then receive and be expected to grant certain rights.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Let's assume that there is a Galactic Civilization, but not necessarily one that is "organized into packs".

One universal question that has always interested me is "The rights of the individual vs. the needs and rights of the many."

Or in other words, Government vs. The Solo Being.

When (and if) we were to make first contact with said civiliza ...[text shortened]... stranger" on the village door mats.

What do you think?

Mike

Look at examples throughout history of more advanced civilizations colliding with the more primitive.
Europe colliding with the Americas between 15th and 19th centuries would be a good starting point.

If our planet is habitable or has resources the alien civilization could use then we're screwed. If not we might get away with being studied.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy

What mechanism would allow the individual to stick up to gangsterism? Technology to defend oneself. Maybe to the point where any individual can implode a star if it's being is threatened. If in the act of killing a stranger, an entire village KNOWS it will cease to exist, soon there is nothing but "welcome stranger" on the village door mats.

There will always be a level of coercion required to facilitate the peaceful cooperation of a group of self serving individuals. On an ever more grand scale if those individuals also possessed immense destructive power at their fingertips, you would think a language of interaction would have also had to develop that allowed free personal expression without the need for violent retribution as a way of constraining all.

Or the Universe by virtue of the fact that regardless of how evolved Intelligent Life Forms become, the potential for havoc always remains and the only way to keep the lid on things is for more extreme totalitarian regimes to develop such that if we ever came across a gigantic universe out there, if it all was part of one unified consciousness, the majority would be in chains.

I'm not sure if it could be a combination of the two. It would depend possibly on the size and nature of the destructive force held by what particular proportion of individuals. We assume that if there were any superior intelligences out there that they would be more peace loving.

Their intelligence could just be a by-product of their warlike tendencies. Necessity is credited as being the mother of all invention. Maybe war simply ups the ante.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
now think of the prehistorical ape. they gathered n groups because they could better defend themselves against predators. and in a group you always have someone who is smarter or stronger than the rest and imposes his will. as the apes evolve, the groups get larger and the need for a supreme will is even more obvious.


and i submit that in order for a ...[text shortened]... uted computation, a problem may be solved quicker if it is computed by two or more computers,

You assert several interesting ideas on how we evolved, and I can't argue with it much; and I concede that OUR civilization has developed largely as a result of opposition to the "mass of stupidity" that seems to clump around "the strongest brute with the strangest odor". Perhaps civilization can be said to BE that force for change that is opposed to rule by brutality. That fits my notions and observations and seems to be what you are saying.

I have to reject the sf inspired "hive mind" notions though. I will assert that at this point in our evolution, se don't have enough information to know WHAT constitutes intelligence or society EXCEPT... HUMAN intelligence, society and civilization etc. We are lacking information. To assume that a "Hive" anything... can develop sentience, which is a pre-required trait and attribute of civilization is jumping the gun a bit.

I would ask for a mental experiment instead of substituting the "herd" or the "hive" in the evolutionary track.

Imagine us in ten thousand years instead. Further assume that we manage to leave the confines of Earth, so that the problem of "resource" and lack thereof do not control our destiny. Imagine that with the use of technology and the continuation of progress in self-awareness acquisition... we lose the need to compete AGAINST EACH OTHER because we realize that the universe is indeed a worthy adversary. That is the end point of our current gangsterism, I think.

Right now, the universe is just a litter-box full of fluffy little humans. Us. This is our birthplace and a kind place to live. All we need do is roll over and suckle the teat.

But the universe isn't designed as a birth-box like mother earth. It is a harsh place and it will require a lot of effort to exist in that condition.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter. What our so-called "civilization" lacks at this point in time is "purpose". We lack "being needed". Only a hundred years ago, if you didn't contribute to the advance of civilization, you were kicked out of it. Now... if one fails to contribute, that person is recognized as "disenfranchised". From what? Purpose. All anybody needs is purpose. Too bad it is so rare as we explode into the shriveling, small nest of earth. It is time. We need to seriously think about getting out of this birth nest. Or die a terrible stinking death of never-ending, meaningless wars, lack of resources and in the end... a still birth of our potential to develop a civilization away from safety. Poor us. Such a lovely little box to be born into. Safe. Protected. Snuggly and lovely.

Too bad we are going to lose it all. But then we all have to grow up someday.

Wow! That was some rant! Sorry.

Thanks for your response.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
As long as Darwinism exists, it exists for all life. I can't see another way intelligent life could evolve. Which means, gangsterism. It will always be majority rules, it always has. Mainly, this is because there are always a few loonies (not looking at anyone in particular) who try to change facts....

You are probably right in assuming that for group hunters like us, selection is an important evolutionary trait. But to assert that it is universal seems a bit strange. Perhaps you are correct. I would assert that we don't have enough information to even guess as to what is universal.

As to changing "facts". That is phunny in the extreme. To know facts would require that we have actual knowledge. I doubt very much that you or I or anyone else has had an encounter of the third type, and so we should not blithely claim "facts" out of mid-air.

I always have a good way of silencing fools. I just ask them for a few examples. I can use you as an example, because you seem to be a dim bulb in most ways. Can you give us examples of "loonies who try to change facts" and then a few examples of "the facts that they changed" and a few examples of "what effect said change by the loony had upon civilization"? Thanks.

Originally posted by stocken
In many cases minority rules through a well trained, brain washed military.

But WHY do we allow ourselves to be led about by the nose?

I will assert that at this point of our so-called "civilization" , the military are our most important asset because as children who have failed to realize that WE ARE ALL RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN PROTECTION, we instead have chosen to let "leaders" take care of us like babies. A nice new nappy and a tootsie-pop and we seem to be good to play chess no end.

Until we grow up, we will need our armies and we will be burdened with government.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Would even the act of being vocal about not wanting anyone to tell anybody about anything be just as unsettling?

Originally posted by spruce112358
Rights are things individuals can do or claim which are granted to them by gangs of others. If I don't live in a gang, no one can tell me what my rights are or aren't. I can do anything the Laws of Science allow.

As soon as a Solo Being grants rights to another Solo Being -- e.g. "I won't shoot you if you don't shoot me" -- they have formed a pact or ...[text shortened]... ty -- if there are any such. We will then receive and be expected to grant certain rights.

I think you are saying that the first contact capable civilization has to be able to "live and let live" then. That seems a good start and I can't argue. If the main cog turns out to be the "individual" or the "state", it must be so willing, it would seem.

Thanks.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Let's assume that there is a Galactic Civilization, but not necessarily one that is "organized into packs".

One universal question that has always interested me is "The rights of the individual vs. the needs and rights of the many."

Or in other words, Government vs. The Solo Being.

When (and if) we were to make first contact with said civiliza ...[text shortened]... stranger" on the village door mats.

What do you think?

Mike

Are you a Raelist?

Originally posted by mrstabby
Look at examples throughout history of more advanced civilizations colliding with the more primitive.
Europe colliding with the Americas between 15th and 19th centuries would be a good starting point.

If our planet is habitable or has resources the alien civilization could use then we're screwed. If not we might get away with being studied.

This is an interesting idea. What you are postulating is a "non-civlized" encounter then.

I think that a truly self-aware person would have been forced to know his hereditary heritage and to have studied the history that shaped whatever passes for "civilization". If I read you correctly, you propose that we might still be at the point of "savaging the savage" well into the future.

This is very possible. I think that I personally am past that point. Since I would be very hesitant to inflict any harm on those I meet in lifes journey, I would choose to think that unless somebody attacks me, I will just smile at them and give way to their needs. I would not have won the west. That is what's interesting about our "civilization". It does seem to be growing up. The mystery remains as to WHY we are changing.

I marvel at the change in us. Just in the past 400 years, we are unrecognizable as a species, as nations and as societies. Yet we still have need to be "led". That will evaporate in another few hundered years. I think.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

No. Because of technology. If any individual carries "planet busters" in the back windscreen of his galactic pickem-up truck, who's going to think that said being... isn't a "government" unto itself?!

You must remember that exponentialism will mean that a single person will come to be as powerful as current nations are powerful.

For example... imagine a B2 swooping over Waterloo with a full load of 24 mirved cruise missles. If the pilot wants to chat with Napoleon... can Napoleon afford to start firing canons at him?

Originally posted by kmax87
There will always be a level of coercion required to facilitate the peaceful cooperation of a group of self serving individuals. On an ever more grand scale if those individuals also possessed immense destructive power at their fingertips, you would think a language of interaction would have also had to develop that allowed free personal expression without t ...[text shortened]... ies. Necessity is credited as being the mother of all invention. Maybe war simply ups the ante.

I think you have hit upon the very definition of "civilization".

Good job. I can't argue with anything. What all civilization amounts to in the end is respect. There are a thousand ways of getting or giving respect. We as "chimp-like apes" tend to think in terms of "ape respect". I am just pointing out that we also may need to learn to recognize and give... THOUSANDS of forms of respect.

Originally posted by Jay Joos
Are you a Raelist?

I don't know. I can't preclude it as I have no knowledge of what that is. So I may be. But I may not be. Until I meet them and learn their ways, I can not know.