Results 1 to 6 of 6

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

  1. #1
    Inevitability won
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    9,594

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

    TOPIC:
    Would humanity have the right to extinguish alien races?
    Mitch: Believes that humanity does not have the right.

    Aanker: Believes that humanity does have the right.



    As Aanker made this ascertion via Steam chat, I shall allow him to post the first opening argument.

    ~

    This is a private debate, if you wish to comment please use this commentary thread, thanks.
    Last edited by .Mitch.; January 11, 2012 at 10:52 AM.

  2. #2
    Aanker's Avatar Concordant
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    7,072

    Default Re: Would humanity have the right to extinguish alien races? [.Mitch. v Aanker]

    (I must confess that my true opinion on the subject is not very serious but for the sake of a good argument I will debate from a completely pro-human standpoint)

    Depending on the situation, humanity should reserve for itself the right to be able to exterminate any alien species it encounters. My basic line of argument for this is that because of the fact that an alien race, no matter their (at the time) technological level or strength in relation to the human race, would be a different organism entirely, perhaps having no concept of morals, diplomacy or friendliness whatsoever. They are not human. In fact, they are not even an organism even vaguely related to any on Earth, having evolved separately within what might be a completely different set of premises. As such, we can never know what to expect from an alien race, and cooperation could lend them technology that could later be used against us.

    Of course, if this race were to live in complete isolation on a world, where humanity has no interest at all, then they would better be left alone. There would be no certain profit for humanity or any species on Earth from contacting them, as they might be hostile or grow so if given the means to strike at mankind. If, however, they were to sit on resources of interest to mankind, it is my belief that we should have the right to exterminate them should they be in a position to deny us such resources. Of course, if it would prove profiting to use them as labour or if they simply step aside to let us forage these resources, then there will be no true incentive for initiating hostilities with their race. We land on the world, get what we need, and get out of there.

    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. There is of course some scientific value in keeping a race alive - especially if it is sentient - and indeed, I am not saying that we must exterminate every organism on the world(s) we encounter, but those that prove dangerous to humans should be removed or contained so that our ventures can proceed unhindered. If of some moderate technological complexity (perhaps that of our civilization today, and this is assuming that humanity at the time possesses the technology to visit other worlds in space), they might eventually organize themselves against humanity, and ultimately have a negative effect on our ability to profit from the resource gathering efforts on that particular world. Therefore, as a precaution, we should see to it that they are unable to do so.

    While taking all this into consideration, it is important to remember that they are not human (and thus this could not be compared to any of the gruesome and terrible mass-murders of our own kin on Earth). They are not of our home, Terra. Their entire thought process may be radically different from that of any organism we know of; they may have the physical appearance of a metallic bucket with wings. Their very metabolic process may be hazardous to humans (suppose that they exhale hydrogen cyanide). And any extermination would not have to be complete, separate specimens could be preserved for scientific purposes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    Russia have managed to weaponize the loneliest and saddest people on the internet by providing them with (sometimes barechested) father figures whom they can adhere to in order to justify their hatred for the current establishment and the society that rejects them.

    UNDER THE PROUD PATRONAGE OF ABBEWS
    According to this poll, 80%* of TGW fans agree that "The mod team is devilishly handsome" *as of 12/10

  3. #3
    Inevitability won
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    9,594

    Default Re: Would humanity have the right to extinguish alien races? [.Mitch. v Aanker]

    My basic argument will center around the idea that nobody has a right to perform genocide.
    Why is humanity supposedly of higher importance than any other form of life. Many people believe we are of higher importance based on, unsurprisingly, the human opinion that we have a higher level of education or are more developed than other forms of known life.
    But who gets to decide what the criteria is for placing one form of life over another in a degree of 'importance'. The meaning of life and therefor the reason life exists is not known, and realistically never will be known so the answer is nobody will ever get to decide who deserves to live more than any other because there will never be a measure by which we can fairly decide on the importance of different forms of life.

    So then, I feel I’ve adequately explained how no species can inherently have the right to genocide of another race. Let me now go a bit deeper into certain situations by which genocide of another alien race might actually occur as suggested by Aanker:

    Quote Originally Posted by Aanker View Post
    If, however, they were to sit on resources of interest to mankind, it is my belief that we should have the right to exterminate them should they be in a position to deny us such resources. Of course, if it would prove profiting to use them as labour or if they simply step aside to let us forage these resources, then there will be no true incentive for initiating hostilities with their race. We land on the world, get what we need, and get out of there.

    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.
    Why do we as humans have a right to wipe out a species for any reason based on self-benefit?
    You have here assumed that this form of life is of lesser importance than humanity, and humanities higher place in the 'grand scheme of things' allows for genocide of this race.
    What if this race decided it was of higher importance and had more of a 'right' to live because it simply lived on a larger planet.
    Who is right in this situation? Where is the criteria for who is right? It simply doesn't exist, and nobody can have said right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aanker View Post
    While taking all this into consideration, it is important to remember that they are not human (and thus this could not be compared to any of the gruesome and terrible mass-murders of our own kin on Earth). They are not of our home, Terra. Their entire thought process may be radically different from that of any organism we know of; they may have the physical appearance of a metallic bucket with wings. Their very metabolic process may be hazardous to humans (suppose that they exhale hydrogen cyanide). And any extermination would not have to be complete, separate specimens could be preserved for scientific purposes.
    At the risk of repeating myself, Why does being human grant us a right to genocide of this race? You'll find this right is actually created by no less than: a human, you.


    Even if the resources on this suggested planet are required for our very survival, Does that give us the right to genocide?
    Why should another race die, so another may live?

  4. #4
    Aanker's Avatar Concordant
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    7,072

    Default Re: Would humanity have the right to extinguish alien races? [.Mitch. v Aanker]

    Quote Originally Posted by .Mitch. View Post
    My basic argument will center around the idea that nobody has a right to perform genocide.
    Why is humanity supposedly of higher importance than any other form of life. Many people believe we are of higher importance based on, unsurprisingly, the human opinion that we have a higher level of education or are more developed than other forms of known life.
    But who gets to decide what the criteria is for placing one form of life over another in a degree of 'importance'. The meaning of life and therefor the reason life exists is not known, and realistically never will be known so the answer is nobody will ever get to decide who deserves to live more than any other because there will never be a measure by which we can fairly decide on the importance of different forms of life.
    But does it not lie within human interests to preserve our species? And should we not, then, work from our interests and instincts to safeguard the survival of humanity, and life on Earth? Since there is no known reason for life to exist, and since we know of no higher purpose, then, arguably, no one can say that if we act from our basic right and evolutionally grown instinct to ensure our own prosperity, that we have done wrong.

    It would be a very grim end for humanity and, possibly, life on Earth, if we decide that we do not have the right to destroy an alien sentient race because of the simple assumption that there is a higher purpose for all life in the universe. In the end, that may not be the sentiment of the alien species we encounter; in fact, they may not even regard us as being "life". And they will not stop until all of us are dead - there can be no reconciliation, no peace treaties, no tributes of work or resources unless they would profit from that in the long run, but they will surely come to the realization that if left unchecked we will grow resentful, and eventually wish to strike back at them. Given how we hold no connection in terms of fundamental thought process or even genetics, our passing would not destroy their "heritage", or survivability (however this reflects back to the previous point; should it prove to be profitable from a survivability standpoint to keep us alive, i.e. as slaves, then obviously they would work from that).

    We must thus be ready to reason in the same way. Any alien race we come across could be a threat, sooner or later, and its destruction, if warranted through hindrance to resources or threat of aggression, will leave one less potential enemy at our back and more space for humans to flourish in.

    So then, I feel I’ve adequately explained how no species can inherently have the right to genocide of another race. Let me now go a bit deeper into certain situations by which genocide of another alien race might actually occur as suggested by Aanker:

    Why do we as humans have a right to wipe out a species for any reason based on self-benefit?
    You have here assumed that this form of life is of lesser importance than humanity, and humanities higher place in the 'grand scheme of things' allows for genocide of this race.
    But it lies within the - arguably morally selfish - interest of mankind to preserve itself. Our ultimate instinct is to see to it that our children may survive, and that, in turn, their children may survive so that our population can grow and survive. Against another alien race, with which we may have no way of communicating, no way of interacting, no way of monitoring our mutual interests or conflicts, we will not be speaking of a mere war, a conflict over resources or money, but rather of an evolutional struggle of epic proportions. It is them or us. If neither profits from a survivability perspective from the other's existance, then the continued existance of that race will be a possible future hindrance to survivability should the amount of resources deteriorate or another, vast source of competition emerge.

    If we do not concede that humanity must have the right to ensure its own survival, then we may as well lie down and die whenever a hostile alien species comes our way, or whenever we are denied resources that will strengthen our own survivability because the local population on that particular world is hostile and a hindrance to our goals.

    What if this race decided it was of higher importance and had more of a 'right' to live because it simply lived on a larger planet.
    Who is right in this situation? Where is the criteria for who is right? It simply doesn't exist, and nobody can have said right.
    In nature, between the wolf and the defenseless calf, who is right? It is of no consequence, since it lies within the selfish interest of both to survive. Both profit from the demise of the other. The wolf needs to destroy the calf to survive, to guarantee its own ability to prosper and build its strength so that it can ward off another, competing wolf, for offspring or food. There is no common understanding, no way of conceding 'partly' for the other, because doing so will leave one or the other at weakness against a wolf who did not negotiate. Presuming that there is an unlimited source of energy, then maybe, the wolf and calf could cooperate and thus share strength but, as I said, our necessity and selfishly motivated right to destroy an enemy race should be applied in situations where a "symbiotic" relationship is not possible, such as when the resources are limited. Such a case inhibits the possibilities of cooperation between the wolf and the calf.

    One must understand that we are not dealing with a relationship between creatures of the same race. Humans can have offspring with each other, we are capable of comprehending the thoughts and actions of other humans, and we can reconciliate. We (mostly) dislike human loss and time has proven to be a great mender of former conflicts. Look at Europe; we have gone from heavily competing states to a European Union with many common policies. This is not possible in the above scenario, nor would it be a very likely possibility between humans and another alien species.

    At the risk of repeating myself, Why does being human grant us a right to genocide of this race? You'll find this right is actually created by no less than: a human, you.
    Yes, because it lies within my (as I have said before, arguably selfish) instinct to preserve my own life and that of my kin, who share some semblances and whose success may guarantee the survival of my own children, and relatives. However between alien races, there is no genetical relationship, no common ground, unless (and we must then again turn to Nature), there is the chance of a symbiotic relationship, in which we will persistently profit from the existance of the other (such as the tree and the fungus living on its roots).

    Even if the resources on this suggested planet are required for our very survival, Does that give us the right to genocide?
    Why should another race die, so another may live?
    Because eventually, we may encounter a race that proves to hold no wishes of peace or common understanding at all. A race that will not argue, will not debate, will not offer terms or speak of peace. A race that, just like we must, has realized that it is an evolutional conflict we are dealing with. If we have spent our time conceding to other alien species, competing on "fair terms" with them over resources and thus having no strong military force, we will be destroyed. If, on the other hand, we have been relentless, seeking only profit and survivability gain, we will have a fair chance to destroy our enemy as humanity has acquired all the resources it needs, all the population and space, to wage the true total war of survival.

    Eat, or be eaten.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    Russia have managed to weaponize the loneliest and saddest people on the internet by providing them with (sometimes barechested) father figures whom they can adhere to in order to justify their hatred for the current establishment and the society that rejects them.

    UNDER THE PROUD PATRONAGE OF ABBEWS
    According to this poll, 80%* of TGW fans agree that "The mod team is devilishly handsome" *as of 12/10

  5. #5
    Inevitability won
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    9,594

    Default Re: Would humanity have the right to extinguish alien races? [.Mitch. v Aanker]

    Quote Originally Posted by Aanker View Post
    But does it not lie within human interests to preserve our species? And should we not, then, work from our interests and instincts to safeguard the survival of humanity, and life on Earth? Since there is no known reason for life to exist, and since we know of no higher purpose, then, arguably, no one can say that if we act from our basic right and evolutionally grown instinct to ensure our own prosperity, that we have done wrong.
    I actualy agree with you here, I think its extremely foolish of anyone to say that it does not lie within human interest to preserve our species, infact our survival should be the most important thing for us. But this does still not give us any right to extinguish other life, who may value their existance just as much as us.
    By all means when the time comes where we are in desperate need of resources for the survival of humanity, I think we should go nuke another race, establish our universal dominance and look after our own kind by stealing, murdering and generaly only giving a about ourselves, yet we will never be entitled to this as a right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aanker View Post
    It would be a very grim end for humanity and, possibly, life on Earth, if we decide that we do not have the right to destroy an alien sentient race because of the simple assumption that there is a higher purpose for all life in the universe. In the end, that may not be the sentiment of the alien species we encounter; in fact, they may not even regard us as being "life". And they will not stop until all of us are dead - there can be no reconciliation, no peace treaties, no tributes of work or resources unless they would profit from that in the long run, but they will surely come to the realization that if left unchecked we will grow resentful, and eventually wish to strike back at them.
    Two wrongs don't make a right (ha double meaning), just because another race believes they have a right to destory life when they want to, doesn't mean we get to destroy life when we want to. Two wrongs not making a right is one of the most fundemental principles we hold within our existance Aanker. =/

    Quote Originally Posted by Aanker View Post
    In nature, between the wolf and the defenseless calf, who is right?
    Let us take a small section of humanity, me. You, Aanker have something I need to survive, do I now have the right to kill you and take from you everything you have, simply because I need to. Ofcourse not.

    In the end life is life, regardless of where we are from, what country or what planet, whether we have two arms or nine.
    You cannot truly believe, as the smart person I know you to be, that self-interest or instinct grant us a genuine right to do something. Our entire way of life as a species relies on the principle that we cannot just do something because we want to or need to.

    Thus I feel the answer as to whether "humanity has the right to extinguish alien races" lies within common sense, we cannot just give ourselves a right because we may need to.

    I will admit I have no idea what gives someone a genuine right to do something, infact one thing I have concluded in my mind from this debate is that:

    I do not believe there is such thing as a true right.

    We will always as a species impose on ourselves what we concieve to be a right, simply out of neccessity to exist, but when you look deeply into what a genuine right actualy is, I think everyone will find that it is much more complicated than deciding we have one based on self imposed factors.

  6. #6
    Aanker's Avatar Concordant
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    7,072

    Default Re: Would humanity have the right to extinguish alien races? [.Mitch. v Aanker]

    Quote Originally Posted by .Mitch. View Post
    I actualy agree with you here, I think its extremely foolish of anyone to say that it does not lie within human interest to preserve our species, infact our survival should be the most important thing for us. But this does still not give us any right to extinguish other life, who may value their existance just as much as us.
    Allow me to point out, however, that just because two sides oppose each other, does not mean that there is inherently one side that is "right", with a justified cause, and another side that is "wrong", with an unjustified cause. Both sides can be right, for both sides can be in a state of conflict for perfectly justifiable reasons.

    By all means when the time comes where we are in desperate need of resources for the survival of humanity, I think we should go nuke another race, establish our universal dominance and look after our own kind by stealing, murdering and generaly only giving a about ourselves, yet we will never be entitled to this as a right.
    However - and I do say this with the important note that I do not pretend to be very well educated in the area of philosophy - I believe we are referring to two kinds of right here. Whereas I argue that we have the interest of preserving our own race and ensuring our survival, and thus have every 'natural' right - justification - to fight for and eradicate any possible resistance that may hinder our survival, you seem to be referring to some form of 'moral' right, a question of what the other race thinks and their stance towards us.

    It is my opinion that they have the same natural rights as us - to ensure the survival of the race, and to strive for the prosperity of their kin - but in an evolutional conflict such rights are void as they infringe upon each other. To ensure their survival, we must be destroyed. To ensure our survival, they must be destroyed. We both hold the same right to survive (just like in the case with the wolf and its prey), but the conflict is therefore without a morally superior side (just like in nature), not without right or justification (two rights do not make a wrong, as a reference to your next statements).

    Two wrongs don't make a right (ha double meaning), just because another race believes they have a right to destory life when they want to, doesn't mean we get to destroy life when we want to. Two wrongs not making a right is one of the most fundemental principles we hold within our existance Aanker. =/
    It lies within their right to survive and prosper, as well. Allow me to suppose that we have a tribe of men living in Ice Age Europe. They are beset by the terrible, ferocious beasts known as wolves (and these are of the untameable kind) - however these wolves have no other way to survive than by eating manflesh, and therefore it lies perfectly within their natural right to do so. Crass, and maybe harsh, but, ultimately, their behaviour is justified in that they would elsewise have to lie down and die. Likewise, the humans are fully justified to ensure their own survival, by striking out at the dens of the wolves with axes, clubs and whatever else you can imagine to destroy their pack altogether, since that is what is required of them to survive. Both sides are "right", and the conflict is therefore not one that can be decided by some form of moral judge or book of judgement, but only by the evolutional strife and struggle of two separate species.

    Let us take a small section of humanity, me. You, Aanker have something I need to survive, do I now have the right to kill you and take from you everything you have, simply because I need to. Ofcourse not.
    No, you do not, because your action is not justified against someone of your own kin. Here the boundaries for the "natural" right I mentioned become blurred or hazened; if I were to point a gun at you, with the intention of later pulling the trigger and killing you, you would arguably have every justification and right in the world to shoot me in your defense. That is natural right, motivied by your right to live, and the necessity of doing so for that right to be fulfilled.

    However, in the case you mentioned, it is not simply believable that you have a necessity to take from me what I own. You could work, and earn money to purchase whatever items you want. We do not live in the anarchy of nature - we live in a structured, social society - and there are therefore other ways to guarantee your survival (and mine) than by shooting me and taking what I own. If we look from a purely rational perspective, you will, by killing me, destroy a part of the human race, someone of your own kin. That someone could hold the mutations required for humanity to survive some form of deadly virus. With an alien race, which surely does have some form of potential value (and therefore I argue that we should evaluate each situation from a case-by-case basis on whether a symbiotic relationship is possible), leaving them alone to develop and prosper will initiate competition and thus hinder our survival. We are then justified in destroying them.

    In the end life is life, regardless of where we are from, what country or what planet, whether we have two arms or nine.
    You cannot truly believe, as the smart person I know you to be, that self-interest or instinct grant us a genuine right to do something. Our entire way of life as a species relies on the principle that we cannot just do something because we want to or need to.

    Thus I feel the answer as to whether "humanity has the right to extinguish alien races" lies within common sense, we cannot just give ourselves a right because we may need to.

    I will admit I have no idea what gives someone a genuine right to do something, infact one thing I have concluded in my mind from this debate is that:

    I do not believe there is such thing as a true right.

    We will always as a species impose on ourselves what we concieve to be a right, simply out of neccessity to exist, but when you look deeply into what a genuine right actualy is, I think everyone will find that it is much more complicated than deciding we have one based on self imposed factors.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    Russia have managed to weaponize the loneliest and saddest people on the internet by providing them with (sometimes barechested) father figures whom they can adhere to in order to justify their hatred for the current establishment and the society that rejects them.

    UNDER THE PROUD PATRONAGE OF ABBEWS
    According to this poll, 80%* of TGW fans agree that "The mod team is devilishly handsome" *as of 12/10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •