Would humanity have the right to extinguish alien races? [.Mitch. v Aanker] discussion thread

[The Hedge Knight]

The definition of right

: being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper <right conduct>

The definition of just
a : having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason : reasonable <a just but not a generous decision>

Can one not take it as fact that genocide would always be preferable to extinction and thus there is right in commiting it in select circumstances? I myself however Mitch am of the opinion that if there is no such thing as right then every action does not require justification and therefore the action is justified in itself. It is in my mind the case that if right ceases to be subjective it becomes universal and every action becomes right... Anyway this is getting a bit too debate like for a commentary .

[.Mitch.]

Oh dear god... Josst, you just quoted the completely wrong defination of right, infact you are thinking of the entirely wrong word.......................................... Come on Josst man.

Right as in I have a right to do something, no right as in right or wrong..... -__________-

[The Hedge Knight]

What do you see as the difference between them? Perhaps you should have defined this and the rest of your terms at the start of the debate, otherwise it is totally open to individual interpretation. Though it is for the proposition (Aanker) to do this. It would have been easier if the title of the of the debate was in a better format. The title should in fact be something along the lines of 'This house believes humanity has the right to exterminate alien races'. The motion may then be defined by the proposition. Now if you wish to tell me I have the wrong "right" when you have not defined it you are acting on assumption which does not make a solid base for your debate.

[.Mitch.]

Does the title not say the same thing for you as it does for me?

In all seriousness, a geniune question, as for me it says "Would humanity have the right to extinguish alien races?".

The word right as in right or wrong makes no sense in this question.

Man this is almost embarrassing Josst, your trying to have an intelectual debate on a subject where you don't understand the English within the question.

Thanks for your input though I guess, if you ever want to debate the difference between a noun and an adjective then let me know.

Plus, fun fact: Aanker created the title of the debate.

[The Hedge Knight]

Oops, my bad there, still the definition still definitly involves the idea of the action being just (therefore justified) so the resultant definition is essentially the same.




Also I blame the [DEFINE] tags

[Tankbuster]

Well this is an easy one:

Once again, I believe you are arguing against the existance of some form of "moral", "higher" right, rather than the "natural" right I am referring to. Our natural right is our justification to do whatever it takes for our race to survive, just as other races would be justified to do the same. When two such rights collide, we have a conflict of nature, not one where we can draw a line between good and evil, right or wrong, because, in the end, both sides are right in their strife to survive - and the existance of the other is a hindrance to that right.

There may very well be no "moral" right in this case, but that is of no consequence, as neither can we be certain that hostile races will have any form of perception on what we humans call right and wrong, and neither is there any way to decide which race, in the greater scheme of things, is "good" or "evil". We will be fighting for our survival, an evolutionary struggle justified through our very most basic right to exist.

Just forget about the context of this debate for a moment, and instead of reading "race" as in "alien race", read it as simply a human race. Why should Caucasians give a damn about the survival of Asians? After all, "Both sides are right in their strife to survive - and the existence of the other is a hindrance to that right".

Replace race with "people from my country", or family or people with a specific haircolour, and the argument is exactly equivalent and carries equal force. Aanker seems to have decided that he will only care about organisms within a certain genetic distance from his own. He'll care about Aboriginees or Inuits dying gruesome deaths, but any more genetic distance (another species or another species on another planet) is apparently not cool.
This is entirely arbitrary.

What I thought we had learned over the last centuries is that it doesn't matter what someone's genetics are or whether they have a double X-chromosome, or whether they have trisomy-21. We value conscious beings for the sake of their consciousness - and to the extent of their consciousness.
If we meet conscious alien races that are conscious, we should value them to the extent that they are able to have conscious experiences.

To flat out say "Sorry, I don't have any duties to you because you don't happen to have the same genetic building blocks that I do." is as arbitrary as racism or militant nationalism.

[Aanker]

The reply to that is even easier - because human "races" are not different species. We share so much in common genetically that we can interbreed. We can reconcile and we can communicate. That was a short answer.

PS. On top of that, the term "human race" is controversial because of the similarities in genetics between humans from vastly different geographical locales. So similar, in fact, that two gorillas (I think? Or was it shimpanzees?) have more genetical differences individually than essentially any two humans.

The argument about countries is even worse. Countries can trade, have diplomacy, and if they do fight wars, they will be able to find peace afterwards. To humans, wasteful human loss is not desireable. But would you expect to be able to sit down in front of an alien from the Aliens movie and have a good diplomatic talk over a cup of coffee?

No?

I did not think so, either.

[Tankbuster]

The reply to that is even easier - because human "races" are not different species. We share so much in common genetically that we can interbreed.

Yes. And?
I'm still waiting for an explanation on why being able to have sex with someone, or having a genetic code within a percentage point of mine, is the criterium for being compassionate with another conscious being. That's still completely arbitrary.

What I was trying to get you to understand was that only caring about your own species is as short-sighted a starting point as only caring about your family, tribe, country or race. The retort "But we can interbreed!" is totally useless. Yes we can interbreed. Big whoop. Why does that matter? I'd still be compassionate with Asians even if there was some kind of genetic gap that prevented us from reproducing.

We can reconcile and we can communicate. That was a short answer.

There is nothing in principle that prevents you from doing the same with an alien species. This idea that when we meet another species, it's an automatic recipe for war, says more about how humans see themselves than anything else.

PS. On top of that, the term "human race" is controversial because of the similarities in genetics between humans from vastly different geographical locales. So similar, in fact, that two gorillas (I think? Or was it shimpanzees?) have more genetical differences individually than essentially any two humans.

I highly doubt that their genetic diversity exceeds ours by that much, but even then, the reason humans have relatively little genetic diversity is because we went through severe population bottlenecks in the last tens of thousands of years.
Again, that's a highly arbitrary way of determining who you're compassionate with.

I hate to break it to you, but I don't give a damn about your genetics. I don't care if you're 1% different from me or 10%. Again, why would that possibly matter? And I also don't care if you happen to be useful to me personally or if I can gain something from you.
What we value in each other is our ability to have conscious experiences; that is all we could care about. If an animal species is capable of these experiences as well and can suffer just like we do, we have reason to be compassionate with them as well. To turn around and say "Sure they can suffer just like we do, but their DNA is different so there" is as sensible as saying "Sure they suffer, but it's a different country/tribe/hair colour so there."

The argument about countries is even worse. Countries can trade, have diplomacy, and if they do fight wars, they will be able to find peace afterwards. To humans, wasteful human loss is not desireable. But would you expect to be able to sit down in front of an alien from the Aliens movie and have a good diplomatic talk over a cup of coffee?

No?

I did not think so, either.

I also wouldn't have a cup of tea with a gorilla (or a child soldier from the Ugandan Lord's Army for that matter), but somehow I don't think that qualifies me for indiscriminate amounts of violence on either of them. And no, it's not because I think I might be able to trade with them.
Not to mention that you're making a total caraciture of the issue. It's easy when you're dealing with an extremely aggressive race that wants to exterminate you to breed. But replace it with the blue dudes from Avatar and suddenly nuking them doesn't seem quite as smart.

Either is a simplistic example, but I don't see how you can dismiss the possibility of trade or diplomacy out of hand that easily. The principle of trade is to make mutually beneficial transactions and that of diplomacy is to spare yourself gruesome costs in lives, time and energy while fighting pointless wars. Are you saying that any alien species we meet is in principle opposed or incapable of either?

[Aanker]

Yes. And?
I'm still waiting for an explanation on why being able to have sex with someone, or having a genetic code within a percentage point of mine, is the criterium for being compassionate with another conscious being. That's still completely arbitrary.

What I was trying to get you to understand was that only caring about your own species is as short-sighted a starting point as only caring about your family, tribe, country or race. The retort "But we can interbreed!" is totally useless. Yes we can interbreed. Big whoop. Why does that matter? I'd still be compassionate with Asians even if there was some kind of genetic gap that prevented us from reproducing.

There is nothing in principle that prevents you from doing the same with an alien species. This idea that when we meet another species, it's an automatic recipe for war, says more about how humans see themselves than anything else.

I highly doubt that their genetic diversity exceeds ours by that much, but even then, the reason humans have relatively little genetic diversity is because we went through severe population bottlenecks in the last tens of thousands of years.
Again, that's a highly arbitrary way of determining who you're compassionate with.

You do not seem to comprehend what I am arguing for. I explicitly stated that the necessity of destroying alien races must be motivated on a case-by-case basis. This was, in turn, motivated by the fact that it is a wild assumption to believe that communication will be either possible or impossible; I was arguing that an alien race may be impossible to communicate or reconciliate with, that they may lack basic concepts of morals or compassions, that they may, for all we know, be completely rational robotic constructs. In such situations, their destruction is motivated by the fact that they pose a significant threat to human survival, to life on Terra.

I do not know how I can express this more clearly than I already have, yet you still seem to be stuck with the same wild speculative guess that an alien race will hold the same principles or circles of thought as a human being. That is not a certainity, in fact, it is just a speculative guess out of many qualified such guesses and my argument is built around the fact that we cannot know, and therefore must be prepared to destroy whatever threat or hindrance comes in our way, to ensure our survival either against that race or a latter race with whom we will not be able to wage a successful evolutional war unless well-consolidated in the space we occupy, with the resources we need to sustain our population and build weaponry.

The parallell with humans is meaningless, because we belong to the same species. This is an undeniable, crucial fact and arguing that the destruction of an alien race or other, non-human organism motivates genocide on our own kin, sounds like (and most likely is?) a splendid example of a hyperbole. I will return to this detail later, but for now, allow me to finalize this first quote response.

There is a difference between our natural right to survive, the necessity of destroying a threat (i.e. the pack of wolves I mentioned in my post), and the "moral" rights related to thought and compassion. When the first right is infringed by the existance of the other, the moral rights are void, as we have an evolutional conflict - hunter and prey, or the competition over scarce resources. Allow me to suppose that the Neanderthals could never have interbred or fully understood human thought or communication (this was not really the case, as there is some evidence that suggests we were able to interbreed), then their competition for food and land would have been a hindrance to the survival of the human genetical heritage. To ensure the survival of our species over theirs, we would have been forced to destroy them, no matter what they thought of that (and probably, they would have reasoned in the same way).

I hate to break it to you, but I don't give a damn about your genetics. I don't care if you're 1% different from me or 10%. Again, why would that possibly matter? And I also don't care if you happen to be useful to me personally or if I can gain something from you.
What we value in each other is our ability to have conscious experiences; that is all we could care about. If an animal species is capable of these experiences as well and can suffer just like we do, we have reason to be compassionate with them as well. To turn around and say "Sure they can suffer just like we do, but their DNA is different so there" is as sensible as saying "Sure they suffer, but it's a different country/tribe/hair colour so there."

This is the part of your argument that I especially like. I showed to you that science does not support what you say. The human race is indivisible and human loss is not a necessity, in fact a hindrance, to the general survival of mankind. And now, you simply disregard that claim as "irrelevant". The reason why you would not blatantly laugh at my death is because social species over time developed centres in their brains for the purpose of considering morals and ethics - these concepts then prevented them from slaying members of their own kin. Perhaps it is no coincidence that these centres, developed under the drive of evolution, still allow for the destruction of other organisms - especially the "creepy" ones? After all, the tribes who did not completely desolate that nearby den of wolves were not likely to survive...

And once again, it is a wild assumption to think that an alien race would have the same form of concept of compassion as we do. Even if evolution on their homeworld still favoured some form of preservation through conscience, we can only guess at how their interpretation of "good" and "evil" would work on us.

I also wouldn't have a cup of tea with a gorilla (or a child soldier from the Ugandan Lord's Army for that matter), but somehow I don't think that qualifies me for indiscriminate amounts of violence on either of them. And no, it's not because I think I might be able to trade with them.

Of course not, because the destruction of either is not necessary, thus there is no "natural" motivation of survival, and we can instead turn to our more peaceful rules of ethics and "moral" rights. But if you were given a machinegun, and left to live on your own in the vast, dangerous jungles of East Africa, with a nearby tribe of hostile gorillas, I am prefectly certain you would do the self-preservational thing and shoot them just to make certain you were not interpreted as yet another droning predator (and subsequently torn into neat little pieces of human flesh).

Not to mention that you're making a total caraciture of the issue. It's easy when you're dealing with an extremely aggressive race that wants to exterminate you to breed. But replace it with the blue dudes from Avatar and suddenly nuking them doesn't seem quite as smart.

You answer what you call a "total caricature" with yet another, "total caricature". The truth is that anything is essentially possible, but we humans tend to think only of organisms and creatures on Earth when given a chance to fantasize up something that we might find in the vast voids of space. The Alien is as likely as the Na'avi (spelling?), and I would personally prefer to destroy the former before having some friendly conversations with the latter, but this is never something we can decide, or, indeed, predict. For all we know, that very valuable room-temperature superconductor that our kinsmen were trying to extract from Pandora could have saved millions of human lives, introduced better, more efficient ways of transporting power (and thus also of producing it), or given us, I suppose, a rifle capable of dealing efficiently with those Aliens that we later happened to come across when trying to find an alternative source of Unobtanium.

I guess the line of thought would be something like "why did we not just nuke them from orbit? Just to be sure?", and then blood spurts out from the stomach of the poor fellow who thought it as a tiny alien spawn emerges to spread his race on planet Earth.

Either is a simplistic example, but I don't see how you can dismiss the possibility of trade or diplomacy out of hand that easily. The principle of trade is to make mutually beneficial transactions and that of diplomacy is to spare yourself gruesome costs in lives, time and energy while fighting pointless wars. Are you saying that any alien species we meet is in principle opposed or incapable of either?

No, which is why - and I do apologize for repeating myself - I claimed it must be done on a case-by-case basis. If we can live symbiotically, and benefit mutually from the existance of each other, then there is no need of destruction. But that may not be the case. In fact, that could very well never be the case. In fact, and this is using your line of logic, the alien race we encounter could think very much in the ways of us humans (and I find this dubious), but have a completely different chemical composition. In essence, a warlike, treacherous race whose entire history has been spent waging wars against itself and other organisms (if you can define mass-extinction as a "war" on anything), a race spending a major fraction of its economical output producing weapons so as to, at any chance of weakness, or sign of strength in an opponent, point the warheads in the general direction of other life. How long do you think a "peace" with such a race could exist, unless there is some form of Mutually Assured Destruction twist?

I would rather have that Unobtanium in my storage, then, so that I can at least have some greater chance of survival for my own race.

[The Hedge Knight]

Yes. And?
I'm still waiting for an explanation on why being able to have sex with someone, or having a genetic code within a percentage point of mine, is the criterium for being compassionate with another conscious being. That's still completely arbitrary.

Group selection, they have a single gene the same as one of yours, you win the evolutionary game. The same argument does not apply to an alien race which in all likely hood would be fundamentally different.

[Aanker]

Group selection, they have a single gene the same as one of yours, you win the evolutionary game. The same argument does not apply to an alien race which in all likely hood would be fundamentally different.

Or kin selection, given the character of human society one's kin benefits greatly from the general success of society and the human race.

[Tankbuster]

Group selection, they have a single gene the same as one of yours, you win the evolutionary game. The same argument does not apply to an alien race which in all likely hood would be fundamentally different.

Naturalistic fallacy.
I'm well aware of the evolutionairy underpinnings of some of our moral beliefs. But unless you're going to bite the bullet and say that the actions condoned by evolution are automatically right, that in itself does not a moral argument make.

You do not seem to comprehend what I am arguing for. I explicitly stated that the necessity of destroying alien races must be motivated on a case-by-case basis. This was, in turn, motivated by the fact that it is a wild assumption to believe that communication will be either possible or impossible; I was arguing that an alien race may be impossible to communicate or reconciliate with, that they may lack basic concepts of morals or compassions, that they may, for all we know, be completely rational robotic constructs. In such situations, their destruction is motivated by the fact that they pose a significant threat to human survival, to life on Terra.

I understood that just fine, actually. It's not like I'm picturing you giggling manically as you aim your Death Star at planet Pandora just for the heck of it.

But nevertheless you're not very far from it. After all when I read things like this: "Should they be a hindrance to the extraction of resources or be an obstacle to human interests, then we must be able to swiftly do away with them to ensure our own success and survival." I can't help but picture Saddam invading Kuwait to seize its oil. If it's a matter of life and death for our species, fair enough (though there are issues there too, lest you want to become a parasitic species), but "success"? "Human interests"? Which kinds of interest are we talking about?
If it's increasing our own living conditions and acquiring more resources, let me say that that doesn't automatically justify the maltreatment of another conscious species, let alone their extermination. It would be a matter of weighing the benefits to ourselves versus the harms we would do to them. And I'm hearing a whole lot about the former and preciously little about the latter.

There is a reason why one nation doesn't simply have a right to go take another nation's resources just because it wants to be richer, and that reason is equivalent when it comes to taking another race's resources.
And trying to link your justification to "interbreeding" is some very strange and arbitrary ethics.

I do not know how I can express this more clearly than I already have, yet you still seem to be stuck with the same wild speculative guess that an alien race will hold the same principles or circles of thought as a human being. That is not a certainity, in fact, it is just a speculative guess out of many qualified such guesses and my argument is built around the fact that we cannot know, and therefore must be prepared to destroy whatever threat or hindrance comes in our way, to ensure our survival either against that race or a latter race with whom we will not be able to wage a successful evolutional war unless well-consolidated in the space we occupy, with the resources we need to sustain our population and build weaponry.

Actually we can make the pretty reasonable guess that whatever alien species gets to the point where they could even hope to challenge us or even become of interest to us, would have to be a cooperative species at least with itself, and would have to have interest in improving their own well-being.

But that's not the part I'm objecting to (and yes, I'll take issue with whatever part of your argument I want). Obviously if we encounter a civilisation that tries to destroy us, we are allowed to act out of self-defense. And perhaps there are even instances where we would be forced to perform a pre-emptive strike.

However, that kind of situation (which is what you're now arguing for) is something quite different from the "If they have resources we want/need, we get in there, and if they don't like it, we nuke them from orbit."

That's something else entirely. Now do you defend that, yes or no?

This is the part of your argument that I especially like. I showed to you that science does not support what you say.

Apart from the fact that you showed me absolutely nothing (unless the "I've heard [unsubstantiated claim X] was some kind of evidence), it's a mystery why you think my argument depended on human diversity being large or small.

My point was precisely that it doesn't matter whether human diversity is large or small because linking compassion to genetics is as arbitrary a starting point as to link it to the border of your country or the color of your skin. Yes because we used to do exactly that (and much of our cognitive processes still operate on that assumption) doesn't mean we are held hostage to them.

The human race is indivisible and human loss is not a necessity, in fact a hindrance, to the general survival of mankind. And now, you simply disregard that claim as "irrelevant".

Because it is. My compassion for you is not dependent on your genetic make-up; it is dependent on your ability to have profound conscious experiences. That's why I also have compassion for other living organisms besides humans, proportional to the level of experiences they can achieve. And why I would show you compassion regardless of how likely you are to further my survival or that of mankind.
And the naturalistic fallacy you tacked on after that doesn't change that.

Of course not, because the destruction of either is not necessary, thus there is no "natural" motivation of survival, and we can instead turn to our more peaceful rules of ethics and "moral" rights. But if you were given a machinegun, and left to live on your own in the vast, dangerous jungles of East Africa, with a nearby tribe of hostile gorillas, I am prefectly certain you would do the self-preservational thing and shoot them just to make certain you were not interpreted as yet another droning predator (and subsequently torn into neat little pieces of human flesh).

Once again you're retreating to the convenient case where survival is a matter of self-defense.

But I hope you understand that I'm also viewing this on a case-to-case basis. It's just that I think your case-to-case analysis is entirely based on what we can get out of them instead of also some respect for them as a conscious species - if they in fact are.

[Phier]

Yes. And?
I'm still waiting for an explanation on why being able to have sex with someone, or having a genetic code within a percentage point of mine, is the criterium for being compassionate with another conscious being. That's still completely arbitrary.

Its why we eat cows.

[Tankbuster]

Its why we eat cows.

And I'm hardly the first to notice that that is an ethical blind spot we have. Interestingly our blind spot here isn't even that great anymore; few Westerners would eat a steak if they had to kill a cow to get it, or even look at a cow being killed.
So we have it done out of sight and out of mind and we sleep relatively soundly over that. But it doesn't take an ethical genius to figure out that something you wouldn't eagerly do yourself, doesn't become more ethical that way.

And yes, I'm a hypocrite in that regard too. There are alleviating factors with regards to eating meat which make me think that it's not a huge ethical issue, but I recognize that my system of ethics entails obligations of that sort. And I (and most other people) are programmed to have this blind spot.

But we're also inherently racist (to at least some degree) and programmed to trust eye-witness testimony and our intuitions over detailed scientific analysis. That doesn't mean these things are good, or worth preserving, or not worth changing.

[Aanker]

But nevertheless you're not very far from it. After all when I read things like this: "Should they be a hindrance to the extraction of resources or be an obstacle to human interests, then we must be able to swiftly do away with them to ensure our own success and survival." I can't help but picture Saddam invading Kuwait to seize its oil. If it's a matter of life and death for our species, fair enough (though there are issues there too, lest you want to become a parasitic species), but "success"? "Human interests"? Which kinds of interest are we talking about?

The preservation of our race, our prosperity and spread across the stars. Things that will ensure and safeguard our survival. These things lie within the basic interests of mankind.

If it's increasing our own living conditions and acquiring more resources, let me say that that doesn't automatically justify the maltreatment of another conscious species, let alone their extermination. It would be a matter of weighing the benefits to ourselves versus the harms we would do to them. And I'm hearing a whole lot about the former and preciously little about the latter.

Because in a conflict of evolution, it does not matter however much harm you are doing to the other side. The "objective" is to survive, to spread one's own genetical material or safeguard that of one's own kin, and sadly, that may require that harm be done on some other creature or species (for instance, Phier's example of a cow). Our feelings of compassion and ethics are the result of kin selection and social behaviour over millions of years, they are ways by which our brains may control our actions against others of similar genetical heritage (humans).

There is a reason why one nation doesn't simply have a right to go take another nation's resources just because it wants to be richer, and that reason is equivalent when it comes to taking another race's resources.
And trying to link your justification to "interbreeding" is some very strange and arbitrary ethics.

And here lies the problem. You are comparing two nations consisting of people from the same species to humanity trying to secure its survival against another alien species. Humans do not want human loss, because it appears that we have been - and forgive the from a biological standpoint inaccurate wording - 'programmed' to avoid human casualties (see experiments carried out with electronic stimulation of certain regions of the brain, leading to loss of morals etc.).

There is a reason why we can, without remorse or regret, hunt other organisms to extinction, destroy rainforests, fish the seas barren and hunt moose on a rainy autumn day, or cut out the still faintly beating heart of a salmon to reach the rich meat inside, but cry when confronted with human suffering, whether that is the suffering or death of a relative, or some unknown soldier crying out in anguish and pain on the battlefield. For all we know, we could "feel compassion" with a shimpanzee (and some really do), being so human-like in so many ways, but that does not neglect the fact that it is much easier for us to hunt them down for bush meat, than to carry out cannibalism on humans, something that is limited only to the most extreme of famines or left to the less developed cultures. Compassion (and, subsequently, ethics) appears to be heavily linked to our genetical belonging - that does of course not mean that compassion is as rational as may appear to be described above, but it is, given its roots in human survival, therefore no hindrance to the destruction of another alien species.

Actually we can make the pretty reasonable guess that whatever alien species gets to the point where they could even hope to challenge us or even become of interest to us, would have to be a cooperative species at least with itself, and would have to have interest in improving their own well-being.

This is a presumption, as anything on the area is speculation, but one that I more or less agree on.

That is (most likely) true, and is not something I deny. What I do doubt is that all sentient alien races will have compassion, or at least compassion as we humans like to call it. We know only what life on Earth looks like, and how it behaves, but that is not a valid indicator on how life elsewhere must be.

But that's not the part I'm objecting to (and yes, I'll take issue with whatever part of your argument I want). Obviously if we encounter a civilisation that tries to destroy us, we are allowed to act out of self-defense. And perhaps there are even instances where we would be forced to perform a pre-emptive strike.

However, that kind of situation (which is what you're now arguing for) is something quite different from the "If they have resources we want/need, we get in there, and if they don't like it, we nuke them from orbit."

That's something else entirely. Now do you defend that, yes or no?

I do, because our ability to defend ourselves against another alien race is tied directly to how well we can consolidate our species, how many we are, and how many resources we are able to muster to produce the weaponry needed to successfully destroy an enemy seeking to do the same to us.

To clarify, with an example (allow me to use the Avatar one): we come to Pandora, and tell the dominant sentient alien species on the world that we would like to mine the Unobtainium there (if communication is even possible). Should they accept, then, clearly, destroying them is an unnecessary waste of resources and there is even a chance that they may work for us. We get the resources we want, thus increasing the prosperity of our race and the amount of resources stockpiled should we ever need to go to war. Millions of human lives could be saved through new medical equipment, our energy consumption could be lessened and our technological level raised. Meanwhile, not a single blue alien has been harmed during the time of operations.

Now, instead, suppose that the alien race opposes our claim to the resources on their world. We know that the Unobtainium on Pandora is of high value, and we can be very confident that it will raise our survivability and ability to strike back or defend ourselves against another alien species. Now, we could either choose to leave the aliens on Pandora be, and face the later consequences of resource shortages and a continued lack of Unobtainium - or, we could ask for a few hundred warheads from Mother Earth, and clear the planet of more or less all resistance to human occupation and retrieval of resources. The procedure of delivering the warheads can be presumed to be of trivial value in comparison with the value of the resources on Pandora. Thus, a few nuclear detonations later, humanity has improved her survivability, and ability to spread her genetical material across the stars. An evolutional victory.

Apart from the fact that you showed me absolutely nothing (unless the "I've heard [unsubstantiated claim X] was some kind of evidence), it's a mystery why you think my argument depended on human diversity being large or small.´

My point was precisely that it doesn't matter whether human diversity is large or small because linking compassion to genetics is as arbitrary a starting point as to link it to the border of your country or the color of your skin. Yes because we used to do exactly that (and much of our cognitive processes still operate on that assumption) doesn't mean we are held hostage to them.

You argued that separating vastly different races - humanity and a supposed alien race - would be applicable on humans, allowing us to separate our own peoples into "races", that we could then justify the destruction of our own kin because of want of resources or something else. This is not true, firstly because the differences between a human and an alien may be so great that they are incomparable to those of any two organisms, in fact, on Earth, and thus it does not follow that one could apply evolutional thinking to the same species within which loss of kin is not desireable, unless we are dealing with very extreme circumstances.

You keep on mentioning compassion as an argument, but compassion is of very little value when our race is nothing but a smouldering ruin. This is not about being the "good" or "evil" side, because evolution in its very character is not about "good" or "evil". This is a question of survivability, of our (admittedly selfish) will to prosper and survive, and unless you can prove that we are wrong to fight for and ensure our own survival, we are perfectly within our rights to exterminate as many alien races as is necessary to completely guarantee our ability to live and spread.

[Tankbuster]

The preservation of our race, our prosperity and spread across the stars. Things that will ensure and safeguard our survival. These things lie within the basic interests of mankind.

Prosperity and survival are a world apart. One relates to our right to life, the other can relate to getting everyone an iPod.

I'm not sure you quite understand the balls you're juggling when you put the two together in the same sentence.

Because in a conflict of evolution, it does not matter however much harm you are doing to the other side. The "objective" is to survive, to spread one's own genetical material or safeguard that of one's own kin, and sadly, that may require that harm be done on some other creature or species (for instance, Phier's example of a cow). Our feelings of compassion and ethics are the result of kin selection and social behaviour over millions of years, they are ways by which our brains may control our actions against others of similar genetical heritage (humans).

As well as thought. We refine our ethical intuitions through thought, just as we do the same with our physical or biological intuitions.

You keep retreating to the same naturalistic fallacy: that what is natural, is right or worth pursuing. And the last few hundreds of years of discourse disagree with you. There was no evolutionairy point to introducing democracy, or equal voting rights for women and black people, or caring for the mentally deranged... in fact the Western way of life is -from an evolutionairy perspective- counterproductive to the propagation of our genes. Just look at our birth rates.

The fact is that our ethical discourse is not based on mere intuitions or what is evolutionairily advantageous. We actually care about other conscious creatures. That's why we allow women to have abortions, tolerate homosexuality, and view a women's ability to use the available contraception and choose whether to become pregnant or not, as one of the foundations of our society and civilisation.
It didn't happen because we saw some advantage in evolutionairy terms. We did it because it was right to care about how women felt and to treat them as fellow denizens of this planet, as in fact they are.
And similarly we should seek to treat other races justly when we encounter them. Not because it necessarily increases our chances of survival, but because it's right.

That's why your appeals to naturalism are so unimpressive: we don't care much about this process in how we organise our societies, yet you expect me to believe it is the end-all-be-all refutation of actual ethics.

And here lies the problem. You are comparing two nations consisting of people from the same species to humanity trying to secure its survival against another alien species.

No, I'm comparing one nation taking the resources of another nation simply to raise its own living standards, to one planet taking the resources of another planet simply to raise its own living standards.
The only one diluting the matter with appeals to our "survival" while you're claiming the right to much, much more, is you.

Humans do not want human loss, because it appears that we have been - and forgive the from a biological standpoint inaccurate wording - 'programmed' to avoid human casualties (see experiments carried out with electronic stimulation of certain regions of the brain, leading to loss of morals etc.).

Oh how recent such a sentiment is.

There is a reason why we can, without remorse or regret, hunt other organisms to extinction, destroy rainforests, fish the seas barren and hunt moose on a rainy autumn day, or cut out the still faintly beating heart of a salmon to reach the rich meat inside, but cry when confronted with human suffering, whether that is the suffering or death of a relative, or some unknown soldier crying out in anguish and pain on the battlefield. For all we know, we could "feel compassion" with a shimpanzee (and some really do), being so human-like in so many ways, but that does not neglect the fact that it is much easier for us to hunt them down for bush meat, than to carry out cannibalism on humans, something that is limited only to the most extreme of famines or left to the less developed cultures.

And we used to treat our women and slaves as second-class citizens too. Now we don't. Because as much as you can bring up your naturalistic fallacy, humans can and do create moral codes that demand and uphold far more than what our survival entails.

Obviously some of its more advanced parts take some effort to adopt and don't come naturally to everyone, but as a whole we're making progress so I can't complain.

Compassion (and, subsequently, ethics) appears to be heavily linked to our genetical belonging - that does of course not mean that compassion is as rational as may appear to be described above, but it is, given its roots in human survival, therefore no hindrance to the destruction of another alien species.

Well I'm very happy to find out that unless compassion has a clearly defined evolutionairy benefiit, it may be discarded as a hindrance.

We know that the Unobtainium on Pandora is of high value, and we can be very confident that it will raise our survivability and ability to strike back or defend ourselves against another alien species.

That's so utterly Machiavellian I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

You do realise that this would make us the Nazis of the universe, correct? This is pretty much exactly what they do: let's keep our own self-interest in mind, do whatever is required to make ourselves more prosperous (citing the off chance that someone might be able to challenge us later as a reason for this aggressive behaviour) and visit indiscriminate amounts of violence on those who stand in our way.
Your problem with the Nazis, as far as I can tell, isn't with their methods of aggressive expansion and utter disregard for everyone who didn't fit into their picture of importance. It's just that their picture of who was important was not quite right; it has to be everyone with human DNA except simply those with blonde hair DNA. But once that correction has occurred, it's perfectly fine to use their exact methods on creatures just as conscious and capable of pain and suffering as well.

And screw Godwin's Law. When you talk about nuking conscious creatures because they don't feel like cooperating with our mining operations, you deserve the analogy.

The procedure of delivering the warheads can be presumed to be of trivial value in comparison with the value of the resources on Pandora. Thus, a few nuclear detonations later, humanity has improved her survivability, and ability to spread her genetical material across the stars. An evolutional victory.

Whoop-die-ing-doo for tribal racial national evolutionairy victories!

You argued that separating vastly different races - humanity and a supposed alien race - would be applicable on humans, allowing us to separate our own peoples into "races", that we could then justify the destruction of our own kin because of want of resources or something else. This is not true, firstly because the differences between a human and an alien may be so great that they are incomparable to those of any two organisms, in fact, on Earth, and thus it does not follow that one could apply evolutional thinking to the same species within which loss of kin is not desireable, unless we are dealing with very extreme circumstances.

This desire of yours that the human species as a whole survives and prospers is still completely arbitrary.

I've asked you why you view this as a worthy goal, and all you've been able to come up with is "Well because it's in my genetics and I'm programmed to, so there." It actually isn't and the fact that you view the entire human race as akin to yourself and deserving of equal respect, is entirely recent.
But even I granted you that every human was programmed with this desire, that still wouldn't give us an actual reason to follow it. The reasoning "I'm programmed to do this, ergo I will" simply makes you a droid.

As it stands, we're programmed to be all kinds of things. Xenophobic and racist is one of them. I assume you're against racism, but if your actual argument is actually "Well yes, we have the evolutionairy urge to be racists, but right now, I think this other evolutionairy urge (that of all humans to survive) is actually more important right now." I'm not sure you see the colossal self-contradiction you're engaging in.

[Aanker]

Forgive my lack of understanding, but exactly why is it that you argue that just because the survival of humanity may not be morally justified - because, according to your interpretation, alien species are equal to humans in the eyes of humans - we should simply be prepared and fully accept the possibility to be destroyed by an alien race? I do sadly not see the rational logic in that statement. And this is the core of my argument. To guarantee our survival - whether that is a selfish interest or not - we must be ready and capable of destroying an alien race. I did not realize you were so eager to see the destruction of humanity because, "duh, all species are equal". Whether we are the most morally inferior species in the universe is of no conflict, why should we just lie down and die, when eventually we come across a powerful alien race, although they may have the superior moral argument?

That is just a genosuicidal line of thought, and forgive menof coining that term.

Your argument of how I am comparable to a Nazi for seeing the necessity of destroying alien races, whose existance may be a direct or indirect threat to ours, is still a silly claim to its very core, because you repeatedly fail to recognize that there actually is a difference in value between what is not human and human (to humans). The targets of the Nazi regime were human, and only the most extremist vegitarian would argue that the killing of cattle (with comparable methods ) is equal to the horrific crimes against humanity (please note the wording there, as well ) that the Nazis committed. The comparison is thus void of any meaning.

So I ask you, once more, why humanity should not work towards its own survival against an alien race?

[Tankbuster]

Forgive my lack of understanding, but exactly why is it that you argue that just because the survival of humanity may not be morally justified - because, according to your interpretation, alien species are equal to humans in the eyes of humans - we should simply be prepared and fully accept the possibility to be destroyed by an alien race?

Actually stepping back is probably a good idea.
There are two large things that I disagree with.

First of all I disagreed with your repeated assertions that empathy is simply something that is meant to service our own evolutionairy interests and that when this doesn't apply, we should view it as totally superfluous.
I think that while ethics in general has indeed evolved in this way, we are at a point now where we can evaluate the wiring we have and that actually, respect for other beings is something to be pursued for its own sake. And the last few hundred years of social progress on this planet seems to support me.
This was my original point of contention, since you seemed rather sanguine about going in and taking whatever we needed from a species just to improve our own living conditions.

But I now see that the second point of contention is far more central to your case, since you seem to consistently circle back to the idea that it's possible that there are incredibly aggressive races out there and our entire system of cosmic expansion and even ethics has to be built to accomodate for the possibility that we might encounter them. And so your entire goal is to make sure we're as strong as we can possibly be when that moment arrives, to give us the highest survival chance.
I admit this is not as cynical as I previously thought your motivations to be (as in "Sorry for nuking you from orbit, Na'avi, but the kids on Earth want their iPods 11.0"), but there are still some serious problems with it, as with many systems of thought that contrast everything to a possible cataclysmic event in the future.

First of all I think your argument is open to several immediate reductio ad absurdum's. Since we have no a priori knowledge of the chance of such a violent civilisation existing, you propose we live our lives assuming they're right around the corner. Ironically, assuming there are 100 other civilisations in this universe who are all not interested in destroying us but who still don't want to give up their resources (which is understandable) it seems you'd nuke every single one of them out of existence to take their resources anyway and make yourself the strongest civilisation in the universe... before you realise that you're the only one left and all the genocides were for nothing.
In fact the ultimate reductio of absurdum of your argument is that you're essentially saying that, because of the possibility that we meet an aggressively expansionist alien species with no regard for other creatures, we should therefore become an aggressively expansionist alien species with no regard for other creatures.

It's also based on some rather big assumptions. I have to assume that subjugating other civilisations and taking their resources increases our own chances of survival substantially enough to justify our behaviour. I also have to assume that acting like giant cosmic dicks and taking other planet's resources is going to work better -in the long term- than allying ourselves with them. Is this not how our world works to begin with? We've realised that alliances work much better than all aggressively militarizing ourselves and taking each other's resources, and this despite the fact that we're (temporarily) stronger when doing exactly that.
Of course your retort would be that this only works because we're all humans. But unless other civilisations are actually 'genosuicidal' I don't see why they'd be opposed or incapable of an alliance where we seek to defend each other against aggressive civilisations. That seems more productive in the long term than becoming an aggressive civilisation ourselves.
In fact, whatever the chance is that a technologically superior civilisation turns up on our doorstep to exterminate/subjugate us, if anything you'll be making that chance higher by advertising that you're only interested in your own prosperity and are nuking your immediate neighbours out of existence. Doesn't seem like that attitude would gain you friends.

Lastly, even if the possible benefits worth the possible risks, what about the costs? Is it worth becoming an aggressively expansionist planet and assiging ourselves the right to exterminate other species, in order for a chance at longer survival? Consider how democracies on our planet, though they certainly have a military and are prepared to defend themselves should the need be, do not aggressively militarize themselves and break ethical codes just on the off chance that the next aggressive state that arises might be stronger than them. We are fine with trading a certain amount of safety for a higher and more ethical standard of life.

After all, as the American art director responded when asked if the art budget of the US should be eliminated so that more funds could be pumped into fighting the Japanese: "What are we fighting for?"

That is just a genosuicidal line of thought, and forgive menof coining that term.

It made me chuckle. It's pretty clever (and see above: catchy).

Your argument of how I am comparable to a Nazi for seeing the necessity of destroying alien races, whose existance may be a direct or indirect threat to ours, is still a silly claim to its very core, because you repeatedly fail to recognize that there actually is a difference in value between what is not human and human. The targets of the Nazi regime were human, and only the most extremist vegitarian would argue that the killing of cattle (with comparable methods ) is equal to the horrific crimes against humanity (please note the wording there, as well ) that the Nazis committed. The comparison is thus void of any meaning.

My analogy was entirely apt, actually, and as you can see I predicted the counter-argument.

Look, if you actually think that all that was wrong with the acts of the Nazis was the DNA of the beings they were perpetrated on, I truly don't know what to say. I think we can make a pretty damn good case against the Holocaust without appealing to such technicalities. The Jews could be a truly different race for all I care, and we could be unable to interbreed with them, and the Holocaust would still be wrong. This is why I dismissed the fact that genetic differences among humans are small, as irrelevant; even if they were large, it wouldn't justify unethical behaviour.

The reason we feel relatively okay about killing cows is because (i) there's actually an arguably necessary nutritional use for it rather than exterminating because they're in our way , but more importantly (ii) cows are not capable of the feats of conscious experience that we are. We are more worried about the experience of a dog than we are about that of a rock; because one is conscious and another isn't. And that is ultimately the only foundation for morality which is not based on the arbitrary claim that while suffering inflicted on your tribe/nation/species is fine, it's no problem when committed on others.

Alien races are potentially just as capable of consciousness, love, mutual respect and cooperation as we are... and just as capable of experiencing pain and suffering. If not more so. And if they are, we should respect them for it instead of viewing them as expendable because their genetics is based on silicium and ours on carbon.

[Aanker]

First of all I think your argument is open to several immediate reductio ad absurdum's. Since we have no a priori knowledge of the chance of such a violent civilisation existing, you propose we live our lives assuming they're right around the corner. Ironically, assuming there are 100 other civilisations in this universe who are all not interested in destroying us but who still don't want to give up their resources (which is understandable) it seems you'd nuke every single one of them out of existence to take their resources anyway and make yourself the strongest civilisation in the universe... before you realise that you're the only one left and all the genocides were for nothing.

And now we have an interesting debate. However, given that we know so very little about life in the universe (and that the universe is infinitely big, thus leaving a potential infinite likeness of any event or outcome), we circle back to the fact that we simply cannot assume that there will be, alternatively not be, a hostile alien species lurking around the corner. The best way to act, when not certain of the outcome, is of course to attempt to develop a failsafe should the outcome be the worst possible. For all we know, all alien races could be hostile.

Once again, however, as I have said before, this is working on a case-by-case basis, and by weighing the profits against the costs. Given the wild speculation that is possible on the area, a majority of the races we encounter could very well offer some form of symbiotic relationship that both of our races benefit from, thus not making their destruction necessary. Since symbiosis can be a mutually beneficial source of strength over time, there will be no motivation for their destruction from a survivability standpoint. I would consider it something of an exaggeration to say that we will have to destroy all races in our path, since, as you argue later, there may very well be reasonable or pacifistic races that we encounter.

In fact the ultimate reductio of absurdum of your argument is that you're essentially saying that, because of the possibility that we meet an aggressively expansionist alien species with no regard for other creatures, we should therefore become an aggressively expansionist alien species with no regard for other creatures.

As unlikely as this scenario is (judging from the assumptions you will be making below), I do not necessarily see the problem with humanity being the single most dominant species in the local cluster of stars, our galaxy, our local group of galaxies or even our local cluster of galaxies. In fact, that would be greatly beneficial to my kin and my heritage, who would have more space to live in and less threat of destruction from the remaining infinite volume of the universe that we yet have to conquer. Likewise, as I mentioned earlier, it is of no consequence whether we are the (from a non-human standpoint) "evil" alien grasshopper species or not. If it is a means of survival for our species, then it will lie within the self-preservational interest of our species to become just that.

It's also based on some rather big assumptions. I have to assume that subjugating other civilisations and taking their resources increases our own chances of survival substantially enough to justify our behaviour. I also have to assume that acting like giant cosmic dicks and taking other planet's resources is going to work better -in the long term- than allying ourselves with them. Is this not how our world works to begin with? We've realised that alliances work much better than all aggressively militarizing ourselves and taking each other's resources, and this despite the fact that we're (temporarily) stronger when doing exactly that.
Of course your retort would be that this only works because we're all humans. But unless other civilisations are actually 'genosuicidal' I don't see why they'd be opposed or incapable of an alliance where we seek to defend each other against aggressive civilisations. That seems more productive in the long term than becoming an aggressive civilisation ourselves.

In fact, whatever the chance is that a technologically superior civilisation turns up on our doorstep to exterminate/subjugate us, if anything you'll be making that chance higher by advertising that you're only interested in your own prosperity and are nuking your immediate neighbours out of existence. Doesn't seem like that attitude would gain you friends.

If a symbiotic relationship (and I guess this is what you would term mutually beneficient trade) is possible, no nukes. If the blue people on Pandora had accepted bottles of French wine (which would perhaps have made them more friendly ) in return for the Unobtainium on their planet, no nukes. It is a matter of weighing the profits against the benefits, but if the dominant sentient alien race resists cooperation or refuses to hand over resources, we must be ready to acquire those resources by force. If they want something from us that we can do away with, then I am fine with trade. This is based on the scenario that the alien species we encounter is technologically inferior, however.

If they are of equal technological level, a number of things have to be considered before opting whether to terminate them or not: a case-by-case analysis. This may sound cold, but, ultimately, we would not want to have another alien race backstabbing our planets and worlds while we are engaged in a lengthy war with some other race that proved aggressive or less cooperative. Assuming that reconciliation and a long-lasting peaceful relationship is possible, we need to weigh the costs of human life against the possible benefits. Will we be able to consolidate ourselves better by picking alternate, unoccupied worlds, than if we engage in a (most likely lengthy) interspecies war and, depending on the weaponry of our forces and those of the enemy race, suffer massive casualties? It could be necessitated because the species we are dealing with is completely unreliable (like us?), but if the resources are plentiful, there is a possibility of trade for mutual benefit, a willingness to cooperate militarily and technologically, and some form of common understanding and circle of thought, then I would of course not vow for the elimination of their race. Nevertheless, were it found necessary, we should not doubt.

If they are technologically superior, we could be making a genosuicidal (it is now an official word) move to attack instantly. After all, cooperation with them could give us valuable technology that may later put us at an equal level. Even if we cannot trust their benevolence, it would be better to wait and see, until we have gathered so much of their technology that we can possibly fight them on equal terms or at least guarantee mutual destruction.

Lastly, even if the possible benefits worth the possible risks, what about the costs? Is it worth becoming an aggressively expansionist planet and assiging ourselves the right to exterminate other species, in order for a chance at longer survival? Consider how democracies on our planet, though they certainly have a military and are prepared to defend themselves should the need be, do not aggressively militarize themselves and break ethical codes just on the off chance that the next aggressive state that arises might be stronger than them. We are fine with trading a certain amount of safety for a higher and more ethical standard of life.

After all, as the American art director responded when asked if the art budget of the US should be eliminated so that more funds could be pumped into fighting the Japanese: "What are we fighting for?"

The problem is that that ethical standard is still of value even if a nation is destroyed, because its people can survive, and remain. But on the evolutional scale of things, ethics and moral stances towards other races are worthless when your world has been incinerated, and the Homeworld OST "Adagio for Strings" plays solemnly in the background to lament the passing of your species. What we could be fighting for, in the end, is nothing so humane as ethical or moral values, but rather for our very survival, the survival of the human genome and life on Earth.

The reason we feel relatively okay about killing cows is because (i) there's actually an arguably necessary nutritional use for it rather than exterminating because they're in our way ,

And why do we need nutrition? To survive.

but more importantly (ii) cows are not capable of the feats of conscious experience that we are. We are more worried about the experience of a dog than we are about that of a rock; because one is conscious and another isn't. And that is ultimately the only foundation for morality which is not based on the arbitrary claim that while suffering inflicted on your tribe/nation/species is fine, it's no problem when committed on others.

Cows may very well be capable of the feats of conscious experiences as dogs are. But that is not a guarantee that an alien race is. It is an assumption to think that they are, likewise it is an assumption to think that they are not; they may be either. If the death of the cow or the dog, however, are necessary for the sake of human survival, then the moral arguments are no longer applicable because a human is, according to human ethics and moral standards, always worth more than either of the two. That is why we eat cows, and only sometimes eat dogs - because for the latter, there is not very likely to be a necessity for its death, thus presenting no barrier for full compassionate interaction.

Overall, I feel that we are now getting somewhere, because I think I got my point across better in the previous post than I did in all the other longer posts.

[Tankbuster]

And now we have an interesting debate.

I agree. It's an interesting deviation from the usual theological or political debates

However, given that we know so very little about life in the universe (and that the universe is infinitely big, thus leaving a potential infinite likeness of any event or outcome), we circle back to the fact that we simply cannot assume that there will be, alternatively not be, a hostile alien species lurking around the corner. The best way to act, when not certain of the outcome, is of course to attempt to develop a failsafe should the outcome be the worst possible. For all we know, all alien races could be hostile.

No, that's a highly facile way of acting. It's a highly simplistic way of dealing with risks, called the minimax. And I'm happy to say absolutely no-one takes it seriously in their daily life.

After all, if "developing a failsafe" against the worst possible outcome was our main motivation for policy, we'd all be becoming geneticists and engineers to avoid (i) a viral pandemic exterminating us or (ii) a meteorite exterminating us.

But we obviously don't. In fact most of our policy is not geared towards (paranoid) concerns of this kind but on developing our societies and making sure we treat each other in an ethical and responsible way, and that people can pursue their dreams and achieve happiness.

Yet somehow our policy towards other races should throw ethics and morality and regards for all this out the window and pretend that we should focus everything on a worst case scenario? That's clearly inconsistent.

Once again, however, as I have said before, this is working on a case-by-case basis, and by weighing the profits against the costs. Given the wild speculation that is possible on the area, a majority of the races we encounter could very well offer some form of symbiotic relationship that both of our races benefit from, thus not making their destruction necessary. Since symbiosis can be a mutually beneficial source of strength over time, there will be no motivation for their destruction from a survivability standpoint.

Since you've already stated that your criterium for destruction is them not allowing us to harvest their resources, excuse me if I think that your criteria are rather broad. And since you're obsessed being as prepared as we possibly are, the terms of your alliances will seem to be "You give us your resources and help us become as strong as possible, or we'll nuke you."
The name for a relationship of that kind is parasitic, not symbiotic.

As unlikely as this scenario is (judging from the assumptions you will be making below), I do not necessarily see the problem with humanity being the single most dominant species in the local cluster of stars, our galaxy, our local group of galaxies or even our local cluster of galaxies. In fact, that would be greatly beneficial to my kin and my heritage, who would have more space to live in and less threat of destruction from the remaining infinite volume of the universe that we yet have to conquer. Likewise, as I mentioned earlier, it is of no consequence whether we are the (from a non-human standpoint) "evil" alien grasshopper species or not. If it is a means of survival for our species, then it will lie within the self-preservational interest of our species to become just that.

... he said while standing on the ashes of every civilisation present in the universe.

Look, there's little point in having this argument if you truly don't care about other creatures at all, since it implies that you'd have no problems killing an entire alien race if it raised our living conditions even slightly. Presumably you'd have no problems killing an entire race even to save a single human since you only seem to value compassion when it's applied to human beings.

I can't much improve on my earlier posts to point out just how utterly arbitrary this framework of morality is, except to say that it is. The cash value of changes in the world are the changes in the experience of conscious creatures. Our DNA is peripheral in this analysis; what we evaluate is consciousness. I've already given examples to show this: even if the Jews were unable to interbreed with the rest of humanity because they had grown too genetically different, it would not be less awful to exterminate them. Similarly, how much I care about a human being depends on how conscious he is. I care more about the experiences of a human than I care about those of a dog, and I care more about either than that of a rock. But if a human is in a permanent vegatative state, I don't care for him. If a human has been zombiefied and no longer has any conscious experience, I can't care for him; there's nothing for me to care about.

It's true that we are biased towards caring about humans due to our innate wiring, but that doesn't mean we should accept this bias, let alone embracing it and proudly proclaiming that since evolutionairy processes only want us to care about our offspring, therefore we should. It is an incredibly short-sighted and immoral way to live your life.

So unless you realise that we should care about other creatures according to their conscious experience, having advanced moral discussions is truly useless. You're openly admitting that the only reason you want humans to achieve cosmic domination is because you were born a human, and if you were born something else you'd want cosmic domination for that other species. If that's truly what you believe, you shouldn't be having a discussion about rights or morality in the first place, since you state up front that everything you pursue, you pursue merely by accident of birth.

If the blue people on Pandora had accepted bottles of French wine (which would perhaps have made them more friendly ) in return for the Unobtainium on their planet, no nukes. It is a matter of weighing the profits against the benefits, but if the dominant sentient alien race resists cooperation or refuses to hand over resources, we must be ready to acquire those resources by force.

See above about your idea of "symbiosis". These are Maffia-practices, not symbiosis.

The problem is that that ethical standard is still of value even if a nation is destroyed, because its people can survive, and remain. But on the evolutional scale of things, ethics and moral stances towards other races are worthless when your world has been incinerated, and the Homeworld OST "Adagio for Strings" plays solemnly in the background to lament the passing of your species. What we could be fighting for, in the end, is nothing so humane as ethical or moral values, but rather for our very survival, the survival of the human genome and life on Earth.

Contrasting every action to the possibility of our total destruction is not very artful and requires little skill. But it's also a fallacy, used by every misguided moral system on the planet.