First Contact

Hmm.  So I got an email saying they would deactivate this account if I didn't come here and write something stupid.  Alright they didn't specifically mention something stupid.  But still.  And while it would be ten times easier to just let them deactivate it, with no particular loss on my part - I'm dutifully posting a blog ANYWAY.  Go figure. 

Today's lesson is about First Contact.  Not the movie, because it sucked and was stupid.  It's about my ideas on ACTUAL first contact with an alien species - and why I think we had better be quite prepared.

First of all, to those of you who don't think aliens exist - that's fine.  This is all of course hypothetical, and would, I think, be true IF they DID exist.  For those of you who think aliens MIGHT exist, well, here's some food for thought.

I have heard the following saccarine and comforting line about meeting alien species: "Any species sufficiently advanced to travel through the stars must be peaceful."  It's a great sentiment and very New Agey, which was hip at some point in the past few decades or so, so it scores points there.  But is it true?  Let's look at the facts.  First, we have only one sentient toolbuilding species on which to base any assumption about such species in general, and that is us.  Second, any toolbuilding species cannot simply be intelligent, but must also possess the foresight and ambition necessary to realize that toolbuilding is profitable.  Using these two basis for our appraisal of the above statement about the general disposition of advanced alien life, we find it to be sorely lacking - and here is why:

First, using humanity as an example, it is not at all clear that as a species learns to build more advanced tools, they also learn not to use them destructively.  While we think of the Dark Ages of Europe as a bloody time in history, the truth is that war deaths and damage have only increased, and quite dramatically so, as our toolmaking ability has improved.  Not just the CAPACITY for such death, but the actual occurence.  On the more micro level, there is nothing to indicate that a typical person's general level of honesty, moral character, and self control has improved on average over and above that of ANY historical era.  Basically, we have no reason to believe that further technological advancement on our part will result in us becoming this chimerical peace loving purehearted species will believe will one day manifest and visit us from the stars (some of us believe they already HAVE, heh).

That is the argument from evidence, and it's very effective.  We have no reason to believe that we are the exception to the rule, and that every OTHER toolbuilding species - if there are any - advances in moral fortitude in step with technological prowess, while we somehow don't.  On the contrary, we can only assume the most statistically likely scenario - that we are AVERAGE in regards to this matter, and that if we do meet an alien species, we are most likely to meet one similar to us in this regard.  However, this is not the end of the story, but just the beginning.  There is an even more convincing argument to be made for the inevitable violence of our first contact experience.  It is an argument from the nature of toolbuilding intelligence itself.

As I said above, an alien species advanced enough to build interstellar spacecraft would have to have foresight and ambition.  These two qualities are not vital to intelligence per se, but they ARE vital to toolbuilding.  To build tools, you must want to change your world, and you must recognize that you can initiate change over time toward a certain goal.  These qualities are good things.  However, they also lead to situations where one being would understand the potential benefit in enslaving or killing another being.  Or where deception could be used to gain advantage.  Or any number of other morally dubious acts.  Now, we could theorize that there are alien species who are completely overtaken by such second-order instincts of the intellect, and who are vicious, cruel, vindictive, deceptive, cunning, and dangerous.  But we could ALSO theorize that there exists a species which has NEVER given in to such urges, could we not?  That's beautiful, and it's the kind of peaceful and advanced species we would like to meet, right?  

Perhaps.  Nevertheless, even with such a species, interstellar war is essentially inevitable.  In fact, even between TWO such species, interstellar war is nearly a certainty!  Why?  Because of their mutual capacity to UNDERSTAND the principles behind to commission of evil.  The only thing to two species have in common - the only knowledge they posses about EACH OTHER at the time of first contact, is that the other posesses the traits of a toolbuilding species.  They do not know the other species' intentions, and they have no way of finding them out in short order.  They share no linguistic or cultural connections.  Pinging prime numbers would indicate to the opposing species that you understand mathematics on some level - but then, you have an interstellar spacecraft at this point, and they probably aren't surprised.  Anyway, what would you send the message with?  Radio?  What if the other species thinks you are trying to bombard them with radiation?  What if they communicate with laser?  What if that thing you thought was a missile launching was a communication device....

And so on and so on.  The fact is, at this point, peaceful contact is a pipe dream.  You have no effective means of communication; no shared context whatsoever in which to attempt communication.  Except one.  The expression of the traits of a toolbuilding species.  This is your ONLY common ground.  The only place you have to begin a dialogue that actually communicates any meaning at all.  This of course means foresight and ambition among other things.  Now, while there are plenty of reasons to coexist peacefully that might appeal to a species' foresight and ambition, we have already been over the fact that no context exists for such peaceful coexistance.  Without the capability of the assurance of peace from the other party, the possibility that they are preparing to steal from you, kill you, enslave you, or otherwise aquire some ill-gotten gain from you is always there.  

It might not happen right away.  But eventually it will.  Someone, somewhere, will misinterpret something.  Someone will make a little mistake, or assume too much about the other and end up scaring them.  Interstellar warfare will break out, probably quite by accident with neither side "starting it."  The war will lead either to one or both sides being rendered incapable of threatening the other (due to extinction, most likely, or possibly the destruction of all advanced technological assets), or it will lead to the capacity for peaceful contact in the future, and a lasting friendship.  Why?  Warfare is the exchange of information.  These are my weapons, my sciences.  These are my tactics.  If you do this, the most apparent counter in my mind is to do that. Here is how we coordinate, this is the type of energy we use to carry information packets. And so on.  The two species will see how the other one decieves them, how they plan, how they foil each others' plans... and the first tiny spark of mutual understanding will begin to grow. 

I call this my Principle of First Contact.  Succintly put, the Principle of First Contact is this:

Upon meeting for the first time, two species will engage in warfare without exception provided the following is true:

* They are both toolbuilders.

* They are both sufficiently advanced, or appear sufficiently advanced, to harm the other.

The warfare will act as the opening exhange of information which is vitally necessary to the pursuit of peace in the future.

So that about sums it up for today.  Questions?  Comments?  Please, feel free.  If anyone still reads this!  ;)

Michael

Of War and Peace

It's funny.  The fact that no one has read anything I've written for basically a year now does nothing to stop me from returning here and writing some more.  It's my fault anyway.  I basically forgot this place exsited for like an eternity!

Anyway today I'm going to write about war and the possibility of world peace.  I'll be writing to nobody with the genuine belief that my words will be lost completely to the universe. 

I am one of the few people who does not want world peace.  Why?  Well its really quite simple really.  The human race in unique as a species in part because of our mental abilities.  Even though our emotional centers in our brains are similar to those of other animals going as far down as reptiles, out cognitive abilities allow us to get angry, or ambitious, or jealous, or just downright spiteful, about a great many more things than any other animal.  Gifted with the knowledge of our impending doom as individuals from a very young age, humans are capable of an almost divine foresight not present in the rest of the animal kingdom. 

This cognitive capacity has allowed us to develop sciences and philosophies - phenoms unique to our species.  But this foresight comes with a price.  Conflict among humans is different from conflict among animals.  It is not instincively driven, at least not always.  Knowledge of inevitable death results in ambition and knowledge of philosophy results in ideology.  Simply put, war and other human tragedies are a direct result - an emergent property - of our uniqueness as a species.  They are linked by definition; in all likelihood - in other words these negative things are inevitable results of having advanced cognitive capacities. Contrary to the notions of idealists, these properties are impossible to avoid so long as the human race remains human.

War is a gruesome and wholly tragic thing.  Starting wars is reprehensible in all but the most necessary of circumstances.  War and other human tragedies should be avoided at almost any cost - but by no means should we pay the price of our very nature.  World peace is a chimera, and paradoxically, the presence of war and crime in our world is an indicator of a cognizent, sentient, healthy human world community. 

Major proponents of world peace ideology are not dangerous now - but they could be.  Ideas like one-world government or national pacifism (the ideology that one's nation should never go to war under any circumstances) are dangerous and should be thought of as such,.  One world government could only solve the problem of violence by destroying all ambition and foresight in the human race, reducing us to thralls and animals.  Even if such a task could be completed, it would certainly put us in a worse place than we are now, even with the presence of war.  National pacifism is even worse because it is more possible - such a stance essentially removes the primary purpose of government which is of course to provide security.  Lacking security makes people more violent and prone to acts of selfishness or suspicion - national pacifism promotes moral tragedy instead of alleviates it.

Do not misunderstand - I am not saying the war is necessary.  Nessecity would imply that the human race is better off as a result of the phenomenon of war, which I think almost everyone including myself agrees is false.  I am merely saying that war is inevitable - a symptom of our human nature which is itelf an indicator that that nature is unique and fully intact.  This is not a negative stance.  Think of it this way - the science of medicine cost money and results in confusing insurance structures, but we are better off with medicine than without.  Likewise, our human capacity for thought and ambition causes war and tragedy - but nevertheless we are better off with it, than without. 

Thanks, and have a nice day.

Currently Reading Remote Viewing Secrets: A Handbook By Joseph McMoneagle see related

Okaaaay...

So I'm extremely pissed at this site right now.  I wrote this huge effing entry last night that took me close to forty minutes to compose.  It was extra special because it was my first good rant for a long time.  When I went to submit it the system said it was down for maintenance.  Yay.  I was thinking of recreating it tonight, but then I thought, no, it just wouldn't have the same heart. 

No matter, I am back and I'm sure I will have something to write about sometime soon.  I mean I could write about my personal life, but the details would annoy, shock, or frighten you, and possibly cause you to call the police.    So for now, I will just say, stay tuned. 

OMG! It's ME!

Hello everyone, if, that is, anyone still reads this.  I know it's been a month and a half, so I apologize for that.  But have I got news for you!  I got a new job, starting July 31st.  I was contacted by a recruiter for this company out here called Hall of Frames.  No more retail work for me.  Well, okay, the company is retail, by my job is going to be administrative.  I get to work in the office and everything looks like it's going to be sweet. 

I have no long-winded philosophical discussions to make right now; life has been too hectic of late to do much of that.  I do have a few favors to ask of anyone out there reading this right now - first, I would like to see how many people are actually reading this blog.  If you read this post, please leave a comment saying "I read this."  Thanks. 

Fuel

Okay.  So I've heard a lot of complaining about the price of gasoline and whatnot.  While I understand this hurts the wallet, blaming the gasoline companies and making them out to be evil profiteers just doesn't stand up to the evidence. 

Exxon Mobil made 9% profit on their last statement, as I recall.  The media, being the ravenous immoral cabal that they are, jumped on the company and immediately broadcasted the fact that the sheer monetary amount of revenue for 2005 was a "record profit," which it was.  But the statement is intentionally misleading, spoken to generate anger at a company which is probably among the most ethical in the world. 

The reason Exxon/Mobil made a "record profit" is not due to profiteering, but due to the fact that as oil prices go up, you, the consumer, continue to buy SUV's at a record pace, continue to drive more miles each year, continue to shirk public transportation, continue to buy record amount of gasoline!  As these companies have found their raw material, oil, more and more expensive, they are also finding they need to fill a larger and larger demand for their product.  You SAY gas is too expensive, but if it were too expensive, people would be tranferring to closer jobs, riding bikes, SAVING GAS.  Instead, they are using more gas, which indicates that the price of gasoline is NOT too high, we, as a nation, are perfectly willing to pay the posted prices and in fact are buying more than ever.

As an example of why Exxon/Mobil is NOT profiteering - their net profit was 9%.  And example of the net profit of a convenience store or other small retail outlet chain might be 15 - 25%.  The net profit of some service organizations can be 50% or more!  If Exxon is profiteering, then these companies should be shut down and their CEO's executed. 

But those companies aren't profiteering either.  They are in industries more competitive than the fuel industry, yet, they still make more net profit.  Because that's what people are willing to pay.  Exxon/Mobil, like all large corporations, has an obligation to turn a profit.   An obligation to its shareholders, workers, and those to whom it owes debts.  It would be ridiculous to ask a worker to work for free just because the product he makes is getting expensive.  Yet in essence that what people seem to want from the gas companies. 

Sorry folks.  But if you don't want to pay the market price for gas, don't buy gas.  Cast your vote for alternative fuels - with your wallet.  Buy a hybrid car.  Ride your bike.  As long as the American consumer continues to increase its use of gasoline, our pleas for price relief are absurd. 

*EDIT*  There is one organization which can and should lower the price of gas - the United States Government.  They could lessen or repeal the gas tax, which makes up a significant percentage of its price.  Just like cingarrettes, another largely inelastic good, the government has taken a "get them addicted, then tax them to death" policy on gasoline.  God forbid the United States government try to impose a price ceiling on gas without first repealing this tax!  To limit the profits - or even cause losses - for the companies supplying the good, all the while being paid for its sale while doing NOTHING... reprehinsible.  But then, that's how government works.