Theoretical Question About Extra Terrestrials

@IceB0x,

IceB0x wrote:

No testing is ever justifiable.

Given the choice you'd let a species become extinct in preference to running tests on individuals without permission. (Tasmanian Devil is an example if you need one)

2 Replies

@Eorl,

To the extinction of human beings, yes. The extinction of our species would cause the saving of many, many species. We've already caused the loss of some species. Is our race more important than the many other species? 1 species < all others.

2 Replies

@Eorl,

IceB0x wrote:

No testing is ever justifiable.

Given the choice... you'd let a species become extinct in preference to running tests on individuals without permission?

I'm not sure I can ask the question more simply than that.

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

Let's say that one day and alien race was to discover our planet and begin taking humans and doing testing on us. They are doing testing on us so that the they could cure their diseases, know their detergents are safe, and that they can test erectile dysfunction pills. Many humans die and more are permanently injured.

Would the Aliens be ethically justified in their actions because they are a superior species?

Aliens
R
T

My initial reaction is to suppose that they would not be justified because there is something special about humans when compared to other terrestrial animals in that we have a particular capcity to remember the past and forsee possible futures. This gives us a unique capacity to suffer.

However, on further reflection, we know very little in reality about the internal psychological life of other terrestrial animals and so a more parsimonious conclusions is that the extra terrestrials would be no more or less justified than we are in testing other terrestrial animals for our own purposes.

0 Replies

@IceB0x,

Your post reminds me of a song about a post-nuclear world. God steps in and remakes the planet . . . with one exception: "This time, he didn't make man."

0 Replies

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

Eg...if one wolf in a fight "surrenders" (adopts a specific posture) the victorious wolf is inhibited from killing it, while confined turtle doves kill each other with no apparent inhibition.

I'm not sure how this tells us anything about ethics or morality. I would think that one would have to compare the behavior of confined wolves to that of confined doves, or wolves in the wild to doves in the wild, in order to make any kind of valid comparison.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Let's say that one day and alien race was to discover our planet and begin taking humans and doing testing on us.

Are these the same aliens doing all that anal probing ? Because I had to take my dog to the vet once and it had its temp taken. I thought about all those aliens and how I was a bit like them....tall and good looking.

0 Replies

@IceB0x,

Quote:

To the extinction of human beings, yes. The extinction of our species would cause the saving of many, many species. We've already caused the loss of some species. Is our race more important than the many other species? 1 species < all others.

This is so wrong. Humans are at least a legitimate part of nature.

Human beings have created some species. Dogs wouldn't exist if humans didn't breed them, neither would corn.

Humans aren't the only species to cause another species to go extinct. Species are always competing for resources, and even eating each other. Species were going extinct, and pushing each other extinct, long before human beings came around.

The suggestion that humans are causing the extinction of every other species is a wee bit dramatic, don't you think?

3 Replies

@ebrown p,

We've created things, sure. We've spliced things, multiplied things, etc. I'm not saying that nothing we've never contributed anything positive. We have. We've also caused the extinction of some species, the endangerment of others, etc.

I'm not saying we're making all species extinct. I was just emphasizing that our species isn't as important as the others IMO. People get the false idea that we're an extremely large force in a positive way. In reality, nothing we ever made will really make an impact 1,000 years after our extinction. It'll be covered up. I'm sure there was a tv show about it.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Ethics, value, meaning are all as usually used very personal things. So failures art, what do you think? How do you think they should be judged? Take some responsibility for your opinions.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Human beings have created some species. Dogs wouldn't exist if humans didn't breed them, neither would corn.

This is specious (pun intended). Dogs are, genetically speaking, wolves. We have altered existing species, but we have not created new ones. Teocinte, from which corn (i.e., maize) descends, still exists in its original form, in its native environment. The same is true of emmer (wheat) and einkorn (wheat) and the original versions of barley and rice. All the succulents, the pulses--all of them still exist in their original forms, and genetically, they are no different from the plants which man altered them into.

0 Replies

@IceB0x,

I guess I'm on "ignore".

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Some scientists have recently concluded that wolves more or less domesticated themselves by joining in a voluntary relationship with humans.

This may link you to the PBS program: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/dogs/

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

That's interesting PlainOldMe, I was thinking about looking at this from the other side-- how would humans react. Rosborne already suggested he would be on the side of resisting a "superior" race however possible.

I had such an encounter a few weeks with an species that took up residence in my attic. This particular group was quite adamant that they not only had the right to set up their colony in the structure I consider my house, they also made it quite clear they would do what it took to keep us away. They were quite aggressive.

Now this particular species is armed with poisoned spears that can at least be quite painful to humans, and with enough number can be deadly. This might be the reason for their aggression.

Of course, this little disagreement was ended when I went to my local hardware store and paid $3.89 for a bottle of neurotoxin (quite nasty stuff with a 30 ft. range of spray). They didn't stand a chance.

I would like to think that humans wouldn't go this route.

For myself, I think the smart thing will be to look up with wide eyes, playfully bat at the stupid things they dangle in front of my face, curl up on their lap and learn to purr.

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

That's interesting PlainOldMe, I was thinking about looking at this from the other side-- how would humans react. Rosborne already suggested he would be on the side of resisting a "superior" race however possible.

My idea of resistance also includes laying low and infiltrating over time if that's what it takes for ultimate success.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

My idea of resistance also includes laying low and infiltrating over time if that's what it takes for ultimate success.

Would playfully batting at things dangled in front of you, curling up in their lap and purring be part of this?

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:

My idea of resistance also includes laying low and infiltrating over time if that's what it takes for ultimate success.

Would playfully batting at things dangled in front of you, curling up in their lap and purring be part of this?

I was afraid you would ask me that.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Would the Aliens be ethically justified in their actions because they are a superior species?

Only if they aren't illegal aliens.

Having crossed the vastness of space and time to get here I'd suggest they should start with some playful probing before the ineluctable mutilation and death.

Sadly you have not been selected for the breeding program so your question about ethics is a redundancy.

When they come for you I'd suggest you don't yell, "eat me", again.

0 Replies

@Eorl,

You're not, Eorl. Sorry about that. I could have sworn I replied to your post.

0 Replies

@Eorl,

I never said I would cause the extinction of a species simply because I refused to test an individual. In all reality, no testing can ever be justified without consent. That doesn't mean that people don't feel the need of the test outweighs the harm on an individual being tested. You could choose to kill one to save many, technically, and it is for the 'best' in a sense. But it still isn't justified.

0 Replies

Theoretical Question About Extra Terrestrials

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know