Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #483955

Re: OT ? astonishing ‘Zoo Theory’

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 22:58:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 11:15:00 PM UTC-7, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 1/1/2018 9:08 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> > In article <717b31ea-38f8-40a4-a59a-d2666828a54d@googlegroups.com>,
>> > Kevrob  <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> >> That is unfalsifiable: "Any sufficiently advanced alien
>> >> species is hiding from us, successfully?"
>
>> > Can you blame them?
>
>> Yes.  :)
>
>Well, indeed. While our bad behavior would seem to give aliens a good reason to 
>hide from us... if they're so much more advanced than us, they would:
>
>- be compassionate;

Assumes facts not in evidence.

>- realize that humans are conscious beings;

Like we assume ants are conscious beings?

>- recognize that the bad behavior which is harmful to many humans is due to the 
>choices of a few;

How do aliens define "bad behavior"?  Eating babies might be a
necessary part of the ET life cycle.

>- and would possess the means to intervene without any risk, or any significant 
>effort, on their part.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

>So, yes, I would blame them for, say, failing to prevent the Holocaust. And 
>various other unpleasantnesses.

Why would ET consider any of these to be "unpleasantness"?  Quadi, you
can't even manage the tiny stretch in your comprehension that would
let you get a date for Friday night.  What leads you to believe that
you can understand a nonhuman intelligence?

>Not that the Prime Directive is a bad idea.

Unless you're a Klingon.

>When you don't understand an alien species, intervention can easily be 
>disastrous, however well-intentioned.

How does ET define "disastrous"?

>But a sufficiently advanced alien species ought to be able to understand us in a 
>reasonable amount of time. Simply not interfering because they want to learn 
>about uncontaminated primitive behavior is exploitive.

And ET sees "exploitive" as a bad thing because?

Back to rec.arts.sf.written | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

OT ? astonishing ‘Zoo Theory’ a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> - 2018-01-01 20:22 -0800
  Re: OT ? astonishing ‘Zoo Theory’ Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-01-01 21:04 -0800
    Re: Re: OT ? astonishing ‘Zoo Theory’ djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-01-02 05:08 +0000
      Re: OT ? astonishing ‘Zoo Theory’ Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-01-01 22:14 -0800
        Re: OT ? astonishing ‘Zoo Theory’ Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-01-01 22:58 -0800
          Re: OT ? astonishing ‘Zoo Theory’ J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-01-02 07:20 -0500
          Re: OT ? astonishing ‘Zoo Theory’ David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2018-01-02 12:24 -0700
            Re: OT ? astonishing ‘Zoo Theory’ Wolffan <aklwolffan@gmail.com> - 2018-01-02 22:47 -0500
      Re: OT ? astonishing 'Zoo Theory' D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-01-02 14:36 +0000
    Re: OT ? astonishing ‘Zoo Theory’ Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-01-02 02:19 -0800
  Re: OT ? astonishing ‘Zoo Theory’ Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-01-01 22:52 -0800
  Re: OT ? astonishing ‘Zoo Theory’ Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2018-01-04 12:10 -0600
    Re: OT ? astonishing ‘Zoo Theory’ David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2018-01-04 11:41 -0700
      Re: OT ? astonishing ‘Zoo Theory’ Leo Sgouros <adravirgo@gmail.com> - 2018-01-04 10:50 -0800
      Re: OT ? astonishing ‘Zoo Theory’ Wolffan <aklwolffan@gmail.com> - 2018-01-04 16:27 -0500
        Re: OT ? astonishing ‘Zoo Theory’ Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-01-04 14:16 -0800

csiph-web