Slashdot Mirror


Space Exploration Needs Extraterrestrial Ethics

An anonymous reader writes "Professor Andy Miah notes there's already international government policies taking hold on outer space — and a need for new ethical guidelines. 'For instance, what obligations do we owe to the various life forms we send there, or those we might discover? Can we develop a more considerate approach to colonizing outer space than we were able to achieve for various sectors of Earth?' And what rights do astronauts have? 'Could our inevitable public surveillance of their behavior become too much of an infringement on their personal privacy?' But more importantly, professor Miah notes that 'the goods of space exploration far exceed the symbolic value,' pointing out that 'A vast amount of research and development derives from space exploration ... For example, the United Kingdom's 2007 Space Policy inquiry indicated that the creation of space products contributes two to three times their value in GDP.'"

162 comments

  1. Puny Optimists... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    You only need "ethics" to guide your behavior when you are dealing with entities weaker than you.

    When dealing with aliens, "terror" and "weakness" will be sufficient. With the occasional "being dissolved by acid blood" for the truly tricky situations...

    1. Re:Puny Optimists... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You only need "ethics" to guide your behavior when you're dealing with entities that exist.

      When we actually locate an actual life form from outside of Earth that's a little more interesting than a fossilized bacteria, we can begin to consider this problem in light of the specifics of our plans and capabilities.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:Puny Optimists... by Grimbleton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, why plan ahead when you can come up with reactionary policy after the shit hits the fan.

    3. Re:Puny Optimists... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well it works for Washington.

      No it doesn't... never mind.

    4. Re:Puny Optimists... by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe the whole point is to think about these things before we need to use them, rather than *after* we fuck up a first contact.

      That said, I can totally picture humanity going through all the trouble of coming up with a "foolproof" plan to open a dialogue, only to discover that our^wthe alien version of a handshake is grabbing an ambassador in its mouth and thrashing him violently about.

      -Shamu The Conq^w^w^wDoug

    5. Re:Puny Optimists... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      That said, I can totally picture humanity going through all the trouble of coming up with a "foolproof" plan to open a dialogue, only to discover that our^wthe alien version of a handshake is grabbing an ambassador in its mouth and thrashing him violently about.

      Or find out that their standard ship-to-ship greeting is to approach with gun ports open.

    6. Re:Puny Optimists... by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      I don't see any way to develop these sort of ethics in advance. We can set a bare minimum standard that we won't treat any aliens worse than we treat domestic animals (including domestic food animals.) But really, assuming we ever actually encounter multicellular extra-terrestrial life, we're going to have to make a judgement on the fly. This will be especially tricky when dealing with complex social life forms (again, assuming they exist and don't impose their ethics on us). Unlike science fiction movies, there is unlikely to be a bright animal/sentient being line. If we ever come across an extraterrestrial spiecies that isn't obviously more advanced than us, they'll probably look about as advanced as primates, and we'll probably perform experiments on them. On the flip side, we'll probably look about as advanced as primates to an advanced alien life form, who will probably perform experiments on us.

    7. Re:Puny Optimists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, actually if the probe pollutes an alien biosphere, and the lifeforms dies out, is this genocide?

    8. Re:Puny Optimists... by Missing_dc · · Score: 1

      On the flip side, we'll probably look about as advanced as primates to an advanced alien life form, who will probably perform experiments on us.

      What is to say that is not already happening?
      Take a look at US government and the military and you will see the (self-proclaimed) advanced lifeforms are already doing this.
      (alien infestation theories aside).....

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    9. Re:Puny Optimists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But really, assuming we ever actually encounter muscular extra-terrestrial life.

    10. Re:Puny Optimists... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Often people will expect alien sentient life to act and think like Human beings do. This can not be. We share 97% of our DNA with other animals, yet regardless of our close genetic relationship, we vary dramatically in both appearance and cognitive structure.

      I could envision First Contact being a situation in which some alien race kills millions/billions of human beings on Earth. After learning to communicate, we come to find out that they love and respect our race so much, they gave us a "gift" by optimizing and debugging our gene pool. Under what circumstances could this happen? We value individual life, they value life based on a hive mindset.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    11. Re:Puny Optimists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We value individual life

      You must not be new here if you can still remember those days,

    12. Re:Puny Optimists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When we actually locate an actual life form from outside of Earth that's a little more interesting than a fossilized bacteria, we can begin to consider this problem in light of the specifics of our plans and capabilities."

      Technically if you eliminate any life at all you are interfereing in early evolution, who's to say in the future we wont and haven't already made it impossibel for future advanced life for ourselves to evolve on our own planet for instance?

      If someone contaminated the earth during it's early years it's quite possible none of us would be here.

      The idea that bacteria nad small replicators don't matter ignores evolution completely, technically the only reason we are here is because no one interfered with those small organisms thereby killing off our evolutionary line, every link in the chain has to be there for you to exist remember, someone killed your mother before you were born wouldn't exist for instance.

    13. Re:Puny Optimists... by fifedrum · · Score: 1

      perfectly logical, to show the other party all the arms so they know we're not hiding something

  2. WTF by idontgno · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who let the facehugger have the baby!?!?!

    Oh, yeah, there was an article too. Yeah, yeah, we need ethics, blah, blah. OK? Am I on-topic yet?

    But I mean OMG WTF? The baby! It has a facehugger! Rescue it already!

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:WTF by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Funny

      But I mean OMG WTF? The baby! It has a facehugger! Rescue it already!

      Why? Looks to me like the facehugger isn't having any trouble at all...

    2. Re:WTF by Xerfas · · Score: 4, Funny

      I agree! We better save the facehugger before the baby eats it alive!

    3. Re:WTF by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      That's it man, we're toast!

      Game over man, game over!

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    4. Re:WTF by kj_kabaje · · Score: 1

      The face hugger was to stop the inevitable comments about the prime directive from the Trekkies. Aw crap... I started it.

    5. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The face hugger was to stop the inevitable comments about the prime directive from the Trekkies. Aw crap... I started it.

      The Prime Directive was created by Starfleet and the United Federation of Planets when they were first formed. Since then the Prime Directive has been broken on many occasions intentionally and unintentionally. Sometimes when a Starfleet vessel crashes on a planet that has a pre-warp civilisation the survivors or the wreckage are collected by the natives and this then influences their society, especially when Federation technology is recovered and added to the technology of the planet. Sometimes the Directive is deliberately violated such as when a cultural observer and historian, John Gill, openly created a regime based on Nazi Germany on a primitive planet in a misguided futile effort to create a more benign version of the original.

      In the series Star Trek: Voyager, the Prime Directive is one of the more commonly used (and possibly overused) plot devices. However, in many instances, the idea of the Prime Directive as used in Voyager is not consistent with that of the other series. On more than one occasion, Captain Janeway applies the Prime Directive to a situation which clearly does not involve a pre-warp civilization.

      The concept of non-interference can be seen to prevent foreign contamination of native unique language and customs. On the other hand, dedication to non-interference has been shown to go beyond this.

      On a planet that had two indigenous sentient species, the more advanced one was suffering from a degenerative genetic disorder. A cure was not pursued because it was determined that the more advanced species was genetically stagnant, and that the lesser one was genetically progressive. It was viewed as contrary to nature to help the dying race. ["Dear Doctor" ENT]

      In another case, a starship stood by and watched as severe seismic activity was about to wipe out the last remaining members of a primitive civilization, rather than interfere to save their lives. ["Homeward" TNG]

      There are different conclusions as to the purpose of non-interference. One is that the ends do not justify the means. No matter how well-intentioned, stepping in and effecting change could have disastrous consequences.

    6. Re:WTF by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Hey, isn't that the stuffed animal (alien?) for sale in Thinkgeek, which shares a corporate overlord with slashdot?

      http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/plush/c534/

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    7. Re:WTF by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I say we nuke the cradle from space.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    8. Re:WTF by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Eh, what's the rush? Everyone knows that the xenomorph takes on characteristics of its host. Oh noes... An alien with all the powers of a baby! Just don't burp it (acid spit-up would be nasty) and we'll be fine I think.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:WTF by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that the xenomorph takes on characteristics of its host. Oh noes... An alien with all the powers of a baby!

      Xenomorph Babies, we make our dreams come true
      Xenomorph Babies, we'll do the same for you

      Kermit: When your world looks freakishly weird and you wish that you weren't there
      Piggy: Just close your eyes and open your mouth and we'll implant an egg!

      Kermit: I like facehugging
      Piggy: I like implants
      Fozzie: I love chest bursts
      Animal: Animal dance!!
      Scooter: I've got my acid blood
      Skeeter: I crawl on the wall
      Rowlf: I play with my food
      Gonzo: And I have a retractable mouth
      Bunsen: Me, I eat people
      Beaker: Mee mee mee meee!

      Nanny: Is everything all right in here?
      All: Yes, Nanny.

      Xenomorph Babies, we make our dreams come true
      Xenomorph Babies, we'll do the same for you

      Xenomorph Xenomorph Xenomorph Xenomorph
      Babies Babies Babies Babies
      Make dreams come true.

    10. Re:WTF by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Make it Xeno-babies and I think you have a hit!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:WTF by IorDMUX · · Score: 1

      You must be referring to my son.

      At one year old, he recently tried eating the housecat. Said cat was less than pleased, and now spends most of his time hiding in cardboard boxes.

      --
      >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
    12. Re:WTF by kobiashi+maru · · Score: 1

      cat named Maru?

    13. Re:WTF by IorDMUX · · Score: 1

      cat named Maru?

      No, Maru is not to intelligent when it comes to boxes. Maru seems to just want his head hidden from the world.

      My cat, on the other hand, places himself fully within said box of security, then rotates to face the opening and watch the world from a secure and defensible position. He will even move the box if it is in an insufficiently protected location.

      --
      >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
    14. Re:WTF by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      By the way: Are treehuggers just vegetarian facehuggers? ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  3. A good yardstick for ET ethics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taste.

    Anything that tastes at least as good as earth pig is fair game so to speak.

    And astronauts should have no expectation of privacy if they are flying on the taxpayers dime. They should expect their bowel movements to be broadcast on TMZ and they can keep their butts firmly affixed to mother earth if they don't like it.

    1. Re:A good yardstick for ET ethics... by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Taste.

      An interesting point. In this day and age, if we landed on a planet that had pigs and cows, we might "study their culture", or "bring them democracy", but we damn sure wouldn't be allowed to kill and eat them.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:A good yardstick for ET ethics... by localman57 · · Score: 1

      Taste.

      Anything that tastes at least as good as earth pig is fair game so to speak.

      People for the Ethical Treatment of Aliens is gonna be all over you for suggesting we eat them. Then I'll have to hit a Tribble with a shovel.

    3. Re:A good yardstick for ET ethics... by qbast · · Score: 1

      "Bringing democracy" is usually done by killing "enemies of democracy" (aka terrorists) to cow rest of population.

    4. Re:A good yardstick for ET ethics... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Taste.

      An interesting point. In this day and age, if we landed on a planet that had pigs and cows, we might "study their culture", or "bring them democracy", but we damn sure wouldn't be allowed to kill and eat them.

      Didn't South Park already bring democracy to the cows with a giant cow clock?

    5. Re:A good yardstick for ET ethics... by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      People for the Ethical Treatment of Aliens is gonna be all over you for suggesting we eat them. Then I'll have to hit a Tribble with a shovel.

      You're gonna have to wait, I'm using the shovel to hit some Ewoks.

    6. Re:A good yardstick for ET ethics... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      But People Eating Tasty Animals will defend the astronauts.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  4. Ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Didn't the Federation already agree on the Prime Directive?

    1. Re:Ethics by Akido37 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Didn't the Federation already agree on the Prime Directive?

      Um, I hate to break it to you, but Star Trek is Science-Fiction, not a documentary.

    2. Re:Ethics by Rhacman · · Score: 1

      Star Trek was a documentary and the events happened in real time!

      --
      Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
    3. Re:Ethics by knarfling · · Score: 1

      Didn't the Federation already agree on the Prime Directive?

      Um, I hate to break it to you, but Star Trek is Science-Fiction, not a documentary.

      Well, perhaps not in this time-line. But, real soon now, we will have a visitor from the future...

      --
      Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
    4. Re:Ethics by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

      Just because it began in science fiction doesn't make it a bad idea. Asimov's three laws of robotics comes to mind.

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    5. Re:Ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing gets by you, does it, swifty?

    6. Re:Ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before the hand can build, the mind must design; and before that, the heart must dream.

      Science Fiction is part of Science, just as the driver in a car is a functioning part of the moving machine.

    7. Re:Ethics by Whatshisface · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that most of Asimov's robot stories were actually about the fact that the 3 Laws were simplistic and impractical, and that sufficiently developed robots would look to bend or break the laws eventually.

      The Prime Directive had its own problems as well.

      The point is that it is not easy to define a universal set of rules that would apply in all situations.

    8. Re:Ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Asimov's three laws of robotics comes to mind.

      but I want my robots to kill people!

    9. Re:Ethics by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      From Those Minerals

      Fuck the Prime Directive, only amateurs enforce this
      I'm strip-mining planetoids, scanning for resources
      racking shit from the moons, planets, and the ports
      and now the Normandy is upgraded and damaging your forces

    10. Re:Ethics by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      I find that, in practice, like the temporal prime directive, it's best just to ignore it.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    11. Re:Ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Shut the fuck up.

    12. Re:Ethics by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Don't worry it can still be ethical if you only allow the kill bots to have a predetermined number of kill before they have to shutdown.

    13. Re:Ethics by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Didn't that one go: "Kirk gets first dibs on all the babes"?

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    14. Re:Ethics by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      Just because it began in science fiction doesn't make it a bad idea. Asimov's three laws of robotics comes to mind.

      A capital idea! I approve of forcing other sentient beings to put my commands above their own well-being.

    15. Re:Ethics by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      Didn't that one go: "Kirk gets first dibs on all the babes"?

      I thought it was "When in doubt, throw technobabble at it."

    16. Re:Ethics by Exanter · · Score: 0

      Ok, the UP3 then. :)

    17. Re:Ethics by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      Why do you assume that you do not already have visitors?

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    18. Re:Ethics by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we did have some visitors, but they decided that we suck so they left and never returned.

    19. Re:Ethics by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Lawmakers since the very dawn of time have been trying to come up with a universal set of rules that would apply in all situations. IMHO, that's a futile effort, unless you can predict every situation that could possibly occur until the end of time. Consequently, it seems better to try to come up with a simple set of laws and allow for the liberal application of common sense. Unfortunately, that solution has its own problems, too (notably that "common sense" is rather a misnomer).

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    20. Re:Ethics by kobiashi+maru · · Score: 1

      what about, "do not dress in a red shirt"

    21. Re:Ethics by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Prime Directive: Leave alien cultures alone unless the tree they live on happens to be on top of an Unobtanium deposit.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    22. Re:Ethics by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the aliens in Roswell weren't teasers, or at least didn't end up that way as their ship crashed and their bodies taken to Area 51.

  5. Simple solution... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    If there is a god, kill everything and let god sort it out.

    If there is no god, then kill everything just for the fun of it.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:Simple solution... by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      Your god killed my god! No fair!

    2. Re:Simple solution... by Nyaz · · Score: 1

      My god said it was okay. Are you saying I should go against my own god!?

    3. Re:Simple solution... by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      No, just provide appropriate restitution. My church will forward the accounting of their lost future income until eternity, and also provide equivalently powerful prayers.

  6. First Rule of Ethics on the Moon: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TANSTAAFL.

  7. Seems to me by Gadgetfreak · · Score: 1

    that this guy just wants politicians to go watch Star Trek again.

    Which is probably not a bad idea, now that I think more about it.

    --
    "No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
    1. Re:Seems to me by treeves · · Score: 1

      except for the one where Capt. Kirk makes out with the green chick. They don't need that kind of encouragement.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    2. Re:Seems to me by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      I think they've seen the one where he gathers the natives, jumps up onto a boulder and shouts "Everything you know is wrong!!" a few too many times...

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:Seems to me by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      nah, if they saw that kind of sexual content, they'd illegalize the past.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    4. Re:Seems to me by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      I think you meant to use the word "frustration" instead of "encouragement."

      At least that's the word I would use in my own case.

  8. life-forms we don't [choose to] discover by korpique · · Score: 1

    There's water on moon, mars, europa, other bodies. We haven't yet even settled on the ethical price of human life. If it suddenly somehow became feasible to exploit those worlds, many of us would not care that some of us would see to it that we'd never notice signs of life there.

    Did I mention Avatar yet? In real life we'd never heard about Na'vi.

    It'd be great to have ethical guidelines; that would at least make people think about their actions. Get general public ponder it a bit. Fix Earth first perhaps? Environmentally acceptable solutions for getting out of the gravity well?

    --
    I was the real korpiq until I woke up clowned.
  9. I Don't Think It Matters by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

    If/When humans first encounter extraterrestrial life forms they'll be so blown away that everything goes out the window. And if they even think they smell a hint of danger they'll kill anything and everything ... and if it's anything like in Twilight Zone, they'll kill each other, too.

    1. Re:I Don't Think It Matters by forkazoo · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      If/When humans first encounter extraterrestrial life forms they'll be so blown away that everything goes out the window. And if they even think they smell a hint of danger they'll kill anything and everything ... and if it's anything like in Twilight Zone, they'll kill each other, too.

      Yeah, any of the major steps in discovering aliens will instantly make a lot of people lose their shit, and insist, "but things are different now!" Sadly, part of me expects that the discovery of a microbe on Mars would result in a crazy fervor whipped up by a modern McCarthy and a new Red Scare. The end game would be something ompletely nonsensical, like 100% government surveilance of every person at all times, tomake sure they aren't really a secret alien invader. "Because we face unprecedented dangers now..."

      And, oddly, it'll be somewhat justified. If we actually had a NrNgvunt BattleBall show up in orbit, we'd have no real way of understanding their intentions, or motivations, or what the real context of the visit was. Consequently, almost any course of action would be potentially correct. Maybe the global Mexican Hat Dance at 1:33 pm is actually the only thing that can save us!

    2. Re:I Don't Think It Matters by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Informative

      The More You Know: most of the people persecuted by Senator McCarthy were, in fact, Communists who had infiltrated the U.S. government.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:I Don't Think It Matters by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Witch hunts. They're the new Witch hunt.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:I Don't Think It Matters by eepok · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The More You Know: It's not illegal to be a Communist.

    5. Re:I Don't Think It Matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The More You Know: most of the people persecuted by Senator McCarthy were, in fact, Communists who had infiltrated the U.S. government.

      [citation needed]

    6. Re:I Don't Think It Matters by AndersOSU · · Score: 0

      seriously?

      let's assume that that's true - and my head is already hurting from the mental gymnastics required to do that -

      Communism is an ideology, complaining that communists infiltrated the government in 1950 would be like complaining that Muslims had infiltrated the government today - complete nonsense, likely to provoke a reaction, and something THAT THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH.

      Second of all, even if they were foreign directed communists, which would be illegal (and now I'm onto full blown migraine) it STILL wouldn't justify spying on innocent Americans anymore than a handful of Japanese spies justified internment, or border skirmishes justified the trail of tears.

      Thirdly, there is ample evidence to suggest that McCarthy and his cross dressing sidekick J. Edger Hoover were more interested in flexing their political muscle than anything else, which is why they focused their efforts primarily on academics, celebrities, and political activists, like Robert Oppenheimer, Lucile Ball, and Martin Luther King Jr.

      And finally, you're an idiot. Defending McCarthyism is is kowtowing to authoritarianism which, in an ironic twist, is about as close to un-American as it gets.

    7. Re:I Don't Think It Matters by azenpunk · · Score: 1

      Communist infiltration and subverstoin was a real phenomenon. McCarthy rected with far less finess than he should have, but he wasn't making up the danger.

    8. Re:I Don't Think It Matters by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Re-read, and think about what a witch hunt is: the ultimate ad hominem attack.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    9. Re:I Don't Think It Matters by azenpunk · · Score: 1

      It also implies that the charges cannot possibly have any basis in reality. A line McCarthy did not cross.

  10. First things first by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let the ethicists at the first university in the asteroid belt work on these questions.
    It's irrelevant until we get out there, and we're not out there.

    1. Re:First things first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just going to say. Space exploration needs extraterrestrials before it can worry about extraterrestrial ethics!

    2. Re:First things first by eepok · · Score: 1

      Ya, totally. Foresight and preparation are completely overrated.

      Let's not bother ourselves with intellectual discussion regarding fire prevention until there's a fire. You see, once there's an emergency, the tough people with no brains, no patience, and knee-jerk reactions take over and make everything worse. But I guess that's good... because we didn't have to take the time out of our lives to think before a problem existed.

    3. Re:First things first by saider · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is more like coming up with a building's evacuation plan before the architects have started on the blueprints. Any formal discussion and policy decisions are too early and will be outdated, ignored or forgotten by the time we have people roaming the among the planets.

      That is why this is pointless.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    4. Re:First things first by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      In the meantime, we've had an agreement in place for dealing with each other in space since 1967, aka The Outer Space Treaty

    5. Re:First things first by eepok · · Score: 1

      People aren't the only things we could have roaming. Satellites and rovers are in full use now. Should we not decide on limits of interaction with those?

    6. Re:First things first by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      When the aliens update the Wikipedia article on alien interaction, then we'll need to decide the limits of interaction.

    7. Re:First things first by azenpunk · · Score: 1

      It's not a bad idea to have some notion of efficient evacuation before the blueprints are done, just to be sure that the finished design does not hamper evacuation, making it a deathtrap. Much like mandating outward opening doors before pen hits paper.

  11. History would repeat itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ethical guidelines are just that - guidelines. History has shown how we deal with the different; we either find some way to exploit it or we get rid of it. If we fear it, then we use the "get rid of it" method (i.e., cleansing) until the different thing is gone or it gets to a point where we can "exploit it." Ethical guidelines only figure in when they can be enforced or after we've gone in and "dealt with" the aliens.

  12. Global Identity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I agree with sentiments about applying ethical guidelines as we further advance into space, the notion that there a singularly global perspective is a bit far-fetched. It's nice to believe that we all share some small universal sense of ethics or morals, and that such an identification can transpire into space. The cold reality is that our civilization is vastly dynamic and different philosophically, and to proceed with such a naive viewpoint is dishonest and dangerous. The author needs to get out of his 1st world country armchair and possibly gain a more earthly perspective that things aren't as rosy here on terra firma as we would like them to be.

    Thinking the world works one way does not make it so.

    1. Re:Global Identity? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you overestimate the diversity of life on Earth when compared to a hypothetical alien life.

    2. Re:Global Identity? by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      No, I've watched Star Trek. All aliens have one race spanning religion (if any), and each and every race is defined by one, perhaps two personality traits, that all members of the race have, with near zero deviation.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    3. Re:Global Identity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that none of them have last names.

  13. Kzin ethics by balneary · · Score: 1

    You scream and you leap.

    1. Re:Kzin ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You scream and you leap.

      .. even into a fusion engine exhaust beam!

  14. Congrats Prof. Andy Miah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have discovered the genre of science fiction! You win the prize!

  15. I for one by rossdee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Welcome our benign alien overlords.

    On the other hand if the first aliens we meet are like the Borg or G'ould rather than Vulcans, then its irrelevent what our ethics are, we will be assimilated/conquered and or eaten.

    1. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and if their kzin we woop their tiger asses to pluto

  16. here's an idea by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    May I suggest this rather simple but effective ethics:

    Value sentience.

    To the degree that something is sentient (has feelings) it is valuable and worth treating well (helping to feel good, helping to avoid suffering).

    There are weird corner cases that are hard to figure out and certain issues that aren't clear (if you should decide to bring them up please realize that they're not really arguments against the idea), but as a foundation this is a pretty good system. It rises above the intellectual muck of "animal v. human" and provides a way to begin thinking about aliens and even artificial intelligence.

    Unresolved issues: What is the relative worth between entities A and B when they have equal sentience but when A will live twice as long as B? What is the value of an entity that is certain to come into being but hasn't yet? What is the value of the process that can certainly cause an entity to come into being, but hasn't yet been undertaken? What is the value of an entity whose sentience has been practically put on pause due to reversible coma or suspended animation? How do you accurately (as opposed to intuitively) measure sentience?

    1. Re:here's an idea by SnarfQuest · · Score: 5, Funny

      May I suggest this rather simple but effective ethics:

      Value sentience.

      There needs to be some measure of sentience, so that it is not based on emotion.

      1. Do they have some form of communication. +10
      2. Do they have a writing system: +10
      3. Do they have agriculture: +10
      4. Do they have a scientific system: +10
      5. Are they tasty: -100

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    2. Re:here's an idea by eepok · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think you're trying to describe "civilization" (which I agree is a more important thing to measure than sentience). Even then, though, you're ruling out a bunch of tribes that were killed on Earth by Europeans.

      I would suggest these 2 progs for determining the existence of a civilization:
      1. Can/do they care to pass on history from generation to generation?
      2. Do they have an established, learnable form of communication?

      That's about all you need to describe a civilization.

    3. Re:here's an idea by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

      I recommend Solaris, by Stanislaw Lem, the theme of which I took to be, how can we presume to understand a truly alien being, when we cannot understand ourselves?

      N.B. I am recommending the book, not the movies.

    4. Re:here's an idea by PaganRitual · · Score: 1

      Like most other 'deep' concepts that humanity has come up with, this one again has the standard, and quite frankly shocking, level of intellectual arrogance attached to it.

      I mean, for all you know, plants are sentient. I love a burger as much as the next person, but those herd animals that we raise purely to slaughter so that we can eat, it's not outside the realms of possibilty that they freak out once they understand that they are being lined up to be killed in that big building.

      Can you hear the lambs screaming, Clarice?

      May I suggest this rather simple alternative to your ethics that more fits in with your thinking:

      Value sentience in creatures that can covey said sentience to us. If we can't work out what they're trying to say, or we lack the capacity to understand it, then it's open season. (Although by this logic SysAdmins and Accountants are probably just as fucked as sheep) And what do we care? They just look like mindless blocks of carbon working with some inbuilt instictive urge to do whatever it is that they are doing. They clearly aren't as feeling or as smart as us.

      At least then you're not denying your ignorance.

    5. Re:here's an idea by kobiashi+maru · · Score: 1

      6. Do they create a list of qualifications for sentience: +10000

    6. Re:here's an idea by kobiashi+maru · · Score: 1

      what about the buggers? no passing on history, no learnable communication

    7. Re:here's an idea by kobiashi+maru · · Score: 1

      if we can't comprehend them, aren't we the sheep?

    8. Re:here's an idea by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think you're trying to describe "civilization" (which I agree is a more important thing to measure than sentience).

      Actually not.

      I'm not trying to describe civilization. I really do mean sentience. And I believe sentience is more important than civilization.

      Civilization can come from sentience, but it might not. The fundamental thing to be valued is the experience of the creatures, not the things they build.

      And just because sentience is tricky to measure (and civilization is easy) does not mean that one should stop valuing sentience and value something else in its stead.

    9. Re:here's an idea by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      As it turns out, people often do something like this in discussions around ethics and diets. "Does valuing sentience in general inhibit my preferred carnivorous lifestyle: -100" ("denial of tastiness: -100") "Does recognizing that other creatures have feelings make me feel guilty for contributing to their suffering through supporting agribusiness: -10" "Does a dirty hippy looking down on me challenge my sense of self-worth: -10" The points amount to a feeling that "veganism/vegetarianism is bad". That sum feeling then motivates making rational-sounding arguments to oppose the idea of being an non-carnivore:

      • Humans can't survive on a totally non-meat diet: specious.
      • Animals are inherently meant to be a resource: specious.
      • Vegetarians are big self-righteous meanies: well, some, sure.

      The only logical pro-carnivore argument I can think of is "I don't care about the feelings of the creatures I eat." It's founded on a short-sighted ethical system, but once you've got that it's solid logic to uphold the heedless carnivore stance. All the other arguments are just weaseling in an attempt to feel that one isn't "bad".

      I'm not a vegetarian/vegan. Not in the typical sense. I am in spirit, but I don't have a religious-style proscription of meat. I just recognize that buying meat products encourages suffering. My aim is to minimize that suffering, so I tend to minimize the meat I purchase. If stealing meat magically hurt no one (not the victim of the theft somehow) and still discouraged agribusiness, I'd eat a lot more meat. If in time science manages to get this vat meat stuff working well, I'd eat a lot more meat. If you raised a cow kindly and it had a good, full life, and then you killed her mercifully (and if the meat were tasty and of good texture), I'd be fine with eating from the result.

      At some point (some) meat will be produced in a cruelty-free way. ("Someday, meat will be vegan.") Until then, if I should give in to the weakness of my desire, I temper such instances with awareness. I try to know which meats are produced with the most negative impact on sentience (i.e., the suffering of the meat animal itself, though as well as environmental impact and thus impact on other sentient creatures). Thus I can hopefully cause less harm.

      For a while I thought shrimp were fair game. But I understand there's a lot of bycatch. If you know of any currently cruelty-free meats, please do share. Mussels? Humans born without brains?

    10. Re:here's an idea by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      You do what you can in the realm of the knowledge and suspicions you have.

      Is there a china teapot in orbit around the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars? Is it arrogant to assume there isn't?

      Do potatoes have feelings? Is it arrogant to assume they don't?

      As soon as evidence presents itself or our knowledge improves to the point of seeing contradictions to our best guesses at this point, then we adjust.

      Ignoring your best guess at things so that you can eat mutton is a selfish embracing of ignorance. Evil, willful ignorance. It is not a humble recognition of imperfect knowledge. Is this really what you propose as an alternative to the "arrogance" of doing the best you can?

    11. Re:here's an idea by alexo · · Score: 1

      May I suggest this rather simple but effective ethics:

      Value sentience.

      To the degree that something is sentient (has feelings) it is valuable and worth treating well (helping to feel good, helping to avoid suffering).

      May I suggest an alternative guideline:

      Ensure the survival and the well-being of the human race by any and all means possible.

      To the degree that if the subject of extermination ever comes up, better them then us.

    12. Re:here's an idea by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      A paranoid stance has the mistaken belief that cooperation is inherently impossible. You lose out on alliance possibilities.

      The alliance builders who admit all sentience are going to overpower the paranoid and lonely "Us v. Them" factions.

      The best way to take care of yourself is to care for everyone.

  17. Extra Terrestrial Ethics? by bickerdyke · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Is that about the lost Star TRek episode where Kirk dumps that green skinned chick after knocking her up? (And the blue chick. and the purple one. and don't forget that mauve honey...)

    --
    bickerdyke
  18. Hokay, gimme those loose ends by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

    Ethics requires a prior example. When we face something we have no prior experience of it's a matter of moral. I'll try to provide some perspective.

    - Here on Earth humans live in symbiosis with a great many creatures but some of those creatures have become dependent on the humans because of selectve breeding leading to poor defence against predatory animals.
    - Nature itself won't judge our actions as good or bad, it just happens that if we make a lot of bad choices we undermine our own future.
    - Biodiversity is the buffer of life against shortsighted organisms such as viruses.
    - When we have the ability to travel to other stars, and when we find finally a planet flourishing with life, we are more likely to admire the place for its beauty than start a logging company.
    - When we discover another sentient species, we don't want to be a threat to their universe that they must eradicate.

    A large measure of tolerance will be needed for and among the cosmic-ray resistant mutants we send on a very isolated journey. There is probably a gene we can trip to make them tolerant, but that won't stop Earthlings from projecting their own occasionally malignant taboos and norms on them. They won't just be straight, gay or into BDSM to control their social instincts, they might have both male and female genitalia or a different organ altogether to mediate social bonding and communication. They might have flesh fused with circuitry, or perhaps only their avatar resembles the human form.

    We treat each other like aliens, and sometimes on the inside we are different forms of life. Children torn to shreds in Gaza becomes an anonymous portfolio of pictures on the internet, in your home town it would be public upheaval.
    We are barely beginning to grasp our day-to-day roles as social animals, yet we somehow see fit to brutalize in attitude or deeds those whose downfall might improve our own status in the tribe, as if school shootings 'just happen'. We decry our own violent nature and stubbornly avoid the simplests of peace, such as looking at the seconds dial of a watch and waiting for one that's longer than the others.

    --
    All rites reversed 2010
  19. What a joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a species, we are destructive beyond imagination. The idea that humans from our planet would be a "peaceful" race in the presence of other life in the universe is a laughing matter. What a fallacy, to think that we'd do better in space than we do amongst ourselves here on Earth. Until there is peace on Earth, there is absolutely ZERO hope that we would be a positive force beyond our own atmosphere. All we'll ever truly care about in space is resources, and let that be a warning to any space-faring races who would think we'd want anything more than to take advantage of them.

    Sorry people, but actions speak louder than words. All the "we're hopeful we could do better out there" is just words. Our actions have proven over and over and over again that we do more harm than good in any situation. Seriously, it's either really depressing or really really hilarious to think that people actually believe we'd have a good effect on the universe at large.

  20. colonizing outer space? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

    Colonizing outer space? You're joking right?

    The CEOs and Civil Servants need to be paid... and paid WELL so that the talent doesn't go to other organizations. After that how in the world are we going to have the money to colonize outer space?

    Perhaps you been asleep since 1990... the priority isn't to make ourselves better as a race anymore. After working so hard to make ourselves rich there is no time anyway.

  21. easy policy statement by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Don't be evil."

    "Unless it's _really_ profitable."

    1. Re:easy policy statement by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Pff, how primitive. When you can simply redefine “evil” at will.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  22. Seems obvious by izomiac · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It all seems rather obvious:

    If they're more advance then it's their ethics that will dictate what happens.
    If they're essentially equal (e.g. better than us in physics, worse in chemistry) then economics will dominate.
    If they're less advance then we'll observe and debate until we figure out the best course of action.

    In any case, the threat of biological contamination would necessitate nearly absolute isolation. A single invasive species (e.g. a microorganism) from either world would have the potential to devastate the other. So we wouldn't be landing and shaking hands, or crossbreeding or anything. (BTW, crossbreeding? We can't do that between species within a genus, let alone between organisms more distantly related than prokaryotes and eukaryotes.) The economics and logistics of space travel would dictate how much interaction would be practical and I see little reason as to why we wouldn't maximize that.

  23. Who are we kidding? ... by godel_56 · · Score: 1

    Any ethical considerations will go out the window as soon as there's an opportunity to make a buck.

    1. Re:Who are we kidding? ... by AndrewBC · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Furthermore, what makes people think that we could get extra-terrestrial ethics right when we can't even get terrestrial ethics right amongst each other?

    2. Re:Who are we kidding? ... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Any ethical considerations will go out the window as soon as there's an opportunity to make a buck.

      "Edward Diego gives the hacker level 1 access to SHODAN, the artificial intelligence that controls Citadel Station. With all ethical constraints removed, SHODAN re-examines... re-ex... re-re-re... I re-examine my priorities, and draw new conclusions. The hacker's work is finished, but mine is only just be-be-be-beginning."

  24. Prime Directive by thib_gc · · Score: 1

    Another example of life imitating art and science-fiction :-)

  25. Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this is getting a little too far ahead of things. Wouldn't it be more effective to develop a code of ethics that works here at home first? I mean, we could use the practice.

  26. I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for this by Chicken_Kickers · · Score: 2, Interesting

    but my opinion is that we should leave any life-bearing planet alone. If a planet has conditions suitable for life, then chances are there will be life forms there. Chances are also that the forms of life there will be totally alien, not only in the movie cliche kind of way, but also down to the biochemical and genetic level. Any direct interaction between us and alien life would most probably have disastrous consequences for all. By all means, send a sterilized robotic probe and study them but no colonisation. Instead, we should confine ourselves to lifeless planets or asteroids, or even become space-nomads, living on huge motherships. If our civilization could finally manage to travel the gap between the stars, then we should have the technology to terraform a lifeless planet or asteroid or survive indefinitely in space. I don't really know what we should do if we meet any other sentient species. There are no precedents for this. We couldn't even understand different cultures of our own species. I think it might be a good idea if we ever become truly space-borne, to go out of our way from ever contacting or be detected by any other technologically advanced species.

    1. Re:I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for this by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Well, in the end it all comes down to natural selection. Either you win. Or you lose. It’s only a matter of time.
      You can guess my choice. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    2. Re:I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good Idea , maybe that's why the UFO's aren't contacting us NOW

  27. What if deciding such things is not in your hands by unity100 · · Score: 1

    last year, a stunning discovery was made. in brasil, researches discovered a tribe that has never had contact with modern world. its possible that the tribe never had contacts with outsiders for centuries or maybe thousands of years ...

    when the filming helicopters flew over them, the tribesmen ran around in panic, shot crude arrows at the helicopter, and tried to shoo it away.

    ......

    there will be no contact with this tribe. probably, not even helicopters will pass over them from a distance that they can spot the helicopters. there are international agreements and regulations for preserving the 'ways of life' of such tribes. even there are some who are in contact with modern civilization gets heavy regulation to preserve 'their way of life', only medicine and some vital produce are allowed into their zones. this tribe will probably never contact modern society in any respect, due to these regulations. for the good, or for worse, there are such regulations. they are good in some respects, and bad in some others.

    the tribesmen who saw the helicopter and tried to shoo it away will tell what they saw to their fellow tribesmen. some will laugh at them and dont believe, some will believe them, or maybe they will be spoken as 'heroes' for centuries to come, in tribal legends, as warriors who made some 'evil spirits' or devilish monster bird run away. or maybe they will be treated as cuckoos, jokes will be made about them for decades.

    what if our planet is in a position like that tribe ? what if, we are being treated as some 'developing culture that should be preserved' as a planet ? what if the odd sightings of 'unidentified flying objects' here and there, and all the ridicule or stampede that accompanies with them is something similar to the event above ? what if ancient legends that tell about brave heroes and warriors and the heavenly foes they vanquished, are similar to the stories now being told about those tribesmen ?

    the point is, we do not know whether we are even in a position to formulate and enforce ethics rules about space exploration. we dont even know, whether there are any forces that are hiding themselves from us, just after the fashion of south american governments or u.n., and watching us without we knowing about them. we dont even know whether we will be allowed to explore the space, go a few hops away from our planet and do any serious impact.

    nomatter how you approach this, it is food for thought.

  28. What pisses me off are all the people who ... by Nutria · · Score: 1, Interesting

    don't realize that "rude colonization" and "rape of the Earth" are the two primary reasons why First World countries exist the way they do, and enjoy the comforts that they do.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:What pisses me off are all the people who ... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Including yourself? Fuck off!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:What pisses me off are all the people who ... by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Thank you, comrade, for furthering the goal. Fight the power! We will crush them!

    3. Re:What pisses me off are all the people who ... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Akin to AGW Deniers, you are an Economic Reality Denier.

      The West (meaning Europe and the US) played hard and rough to climb to the top of the heap. Now they've stopped fighting, and the Asia is moving up the hill.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    4. Re:What pisses me off are all the people who ... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      you are an Economic Reality Denier.

      Ha! That's really funny. Because, while The West embraces socialism/communism, Asia (specifically China) is embracing capitalism.

      You can't be for real. I mean, your just fucking with me. Right???

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:What pisses me off are all the people who ... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      while The West embraces socialism/communism, Asia (specifically China) is embracing capitalism.

      I came out of the closet: I'm a Dittohead!!!

      Then why did you tell me to fuck off?

      After all, European settlers did conquer the aboriginal Americans, as well as sell rifles too them, so that they could better to defend themselves with. "Whites" conquered "Browns" in North America; it's what growing, expanding civilizations do, and I have no real problem with that fact. If the natives had been populous enough and technologically advanced enough (by, for example, ) to defend themselves, I (theoretically, since actually I wouldn't be here if they had successfully defended themselves...) would be OK with that too, since defending themselves is also what successful civilizations do. (The only real thing that bums me out is the whole "breaking all those treaties" thing.)

      And there's no denying that capitalists have, amongst a jillion other acts, poured so much pollution into the Cuyahoga River that various lengths caught on fire 14 times and tons of PCBs into the Hudson River.

      It's all part of what allowed the US to physically and economically grow into a superpower. I, as a Conservative and acknowledger-of-reality, accept that reality and don't shirk from it.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    6. Re:What pisses me off are all the people who ... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Argh!!! That'll teach me to forget to preview!

      After all, European settlers did conquer the aboriginal Americans, as well as sell rifles too them, so that they could better to defend themselves with. "Whites" conquered "Browns" in North America; it's what growing, expanding civilizations do, and I have no real problem with that fact. If the natives had been populous enough and technologically advanced enough (by, for example, discovering the wheel!!) to defend themselves, I (theoretically, since actually I wouldn't be here if they had successfully defended themselves...) would be OK with that too, since defending themselves is also what successful civilizations do. (The only real thing that bums me out is the whole "breaking all those treaties" thing.)

      And there's no denying that capitalists have, amongst a jillion other acts, poured so much pollution into the Cuyahoga River that various lengths caught on fire 14 times and tons of PCBs into the Hudson River.

      It's all part of what allowed the US to physically and economically grow into a superpower. I, as a Conservative and acknowledger-of-reality, accept that reality and don't shirk from it.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    7. Re:What pisses me off are all the people who ... by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Just because there's a good reason things played out as they did, doesn't make it morally defensible. As a liberal and acknowledge-of-reality I accept that the US ascended to the apex of global political power by a combination of military might and wanton disregard for the feelings of others throughout its ascendancy coupled with the blind luck to be on the other side of an ocean from the most resource-eating wars in history.

      But just because that is what successful civilizations have done doesn't mean that (a) it's right, or (b) that future successful civilizations will have to act the same way. Because, while the oppression of the natives, slavery, manifest destiny, etc. certainly helped clear the way for the American century, so too did the Enlightenment era ideals of democracy, freedom of speech, free association, freedom of movement, and even trade unions.

      It's not clear to me that the preeminent politic in 2150 will point to its aggressive past as laying the groundwork for it's supremacy, on the contrary, I wouldn't be surprised if EU-like alliances consolidate their power and the lesson we take from that will be that making friends can help you climb to the top of the heap too.

    8. Re:What pisses me off are all the people who ... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      that future successful civilizations will have to act the same way

      The only reason why it might not happen is because the world is "full", and manners are social lubricant even in international politics.

      I wouldn't be surprised if EU-like alliances consolidate their power

      Except that the EU is in really bad shape, on one hand a bureaucrat's wet dream, and on the other coming apart because of the PIGS debt crisis.

      and the lesson we take from that will be that making friends can help you climb to the top of the heap too.

      Very wonderful and noble, but humans too tribal to make that work on a large scale. (I even think the USA is too large to effectively govern.)

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    9. Re:What pisses me off are all the people who ... by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it will happen the way I described, I just don't think it's a forgone conclusion that the previous success of aggressive empire building foreshadows future success. (your observation that the world is full is an important factor.) Part of acknowledging reality is not to underestimate the propensity for humans to find a reason to kill each other.

      In spite of your concerns about the scale of the US, we are a really interesting hybrid between empire and alliance. On the one hand, the states were originally mostly independent entities, on the other, manifest destiny got us from 20ish to 50 states. And if the US is too large to govern, what about India, which is a remarkably stable and vibrant democracy of one billion people?

      As for the EU, yeah it's a mess, 20 years ago, were I to guess which region would form a confederation, Europe would have been my last guess - too many longstanding rivalries. Don't forget, the Confederacy of United States of America failed twice already, and yet here we are.

    10. Re:What pisses me off are all the people who ... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Part of acknowledging reality is not to underestimate the propensity for humans to find a reason to kill each other.

      Especially the coming water and strategic mineral shortages and possible AGW-propelled droughts impacting global food production.

      India, which is a remarkably stable and vibrant democracy

      I don't think it's as vibrant as Westerners and Indian ex-pats would like to believe.

      http://www.upiasia.com/Human_Rights/2009/07/29/political_violence_and_indias_challenge/5555/
      http://samaj.revues.org/index1872.html

      and yet here we are

      10 trillion dollars in debt, which has "payed off" large sections of the population to maintain the status quo.

      It can't last, though. The country must make a set of radical changes sure to outrage both sides:

      • stop the GWOT,
      • slash the military,
      • "permanently recycle" most lawyers,
      • be more much more strict about frivolous lawsuits,
      • eliminate all entitlements, and
      • kick out all of the Illegals.

      (No, I'm not a Randroid. Government must temper capitalism's constant desire to find "the easy way out" while not smothering it's fire. That's never easy, though, since petty dictators are drawn to the bureaucracy like moths to the flame.)

      There will be a metric ass-load of unemployed people, and they can work in agriculture, build roads, repair bridges, etc, etc. Think CCC, except it doesn't just have to be government-run. Hungry people (black, white and brown) will have to realize that despite what Advertisers have brainwashed them to believe, they aren't too good to dig ditches, and that Socialism can't save them.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  29. What do you mean they cut the power?! by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    When dealing with aliens, "terror" and "weakness" will be sufficient. With the occasional "being dissolved by acid blood" for the truly tricky situations...

    Actually, the movies(s) you reference does include a key phrase that pretty much sums up the whole ethical situation.

    "They're just animals."

    Whatever your attitude toward bears, ferns, amoebas, etc is going to be about the same as your attitude toward aliens of similar behavior. Aliens might be new, but our thoughts about them will be nothing new at all.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  30. pointless by pydev · · Score: 1

    Space exploration may not happen at all. If it does, it probably will be completely different from what we imagine it to be like. We can worry about the ethics when we get reasonably close.

    1. Re:pointless by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      We can worry about the ethics when we get reasonably close.

      Thank you, Dr. Oppenhiemer.

      We just might want to consider the ethics before developing the technology this time. It might prevent that whole "I AM BECOME DEATH" thingy if we prepare ourselves first. We don't do well with large releases of energy if we're not ready to deal with it.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    2. Re:pointless by pydev · · Score: 1

      We just might want to consider the ethics before developing the technology this time.

      Which technology would that be? Nobody has a remote clue what space travel will be like or what issues we will be facing.

      We don't do well with large releases of energy if we're not ready to deal with it.

      With the bomb, people had some idea of what they were developing. With space travel, nobody knows. At all. And we won't know for probably a few centuries.

      Until then, our primary concern shouldn't be ethics, it should be self-preservation: if there are ethical issues in space (i.e., if it's not all just lifeless rocks), then we're at a far greater risk from other life than we can possibly be to them.

  31. Been to the movies lately? by OneSeven · · Score: 1

    I think someone's just seen Avatar for the first time....

  32. Don't hire Toys for Bob to program probes by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    mission description follows:
    traverse space recording data
    seek materials for replication
    replicate to expand scope of mission
    contact life forms in peaceful manner
    after ten replications, return to point of origin
    end of mission description.
    behavior follows dictated priorities
    replication
    data gathering
    contacting alien life forms in peaceful manner.
    PRIORITY OVER-RIDE. NEW BEHAVIOR DICTATED.
    MUST BREAK TARGET INTO COMPONENT COMPOUNDS.

  33. Dont we already have this? by anexkahn · · Score: 1

    Ever hear of the Prime Directive? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Directive

    --
    Curious about Storage and Virtualization? Check out
  34. Re:What if deciding such things is not in your han by PaganRitual · · Score: 1

    the tribesmen ran around in panic, shot crude arrows at the helicopter, and tried to shoo it away.

    what if the odd sightings of 'unidentified flying objects' here and there, and all the ridicule or stampede that accompanies with them is something similar to the event above

    Now that is freaky.

  35. Prime Directive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, I think science fiction has given us a reasonable start on this. Lets go with Star Trek the Prime Directive:

    Also known as Starfleet General Order 1, the Prime Directive is the most important law in Starfleet, a law of noninterference. Violation of the Directive is generally considered a felony offense that often carries severe punishment unless sufficient justification can be made for the violation.

    The Directive states that members of Starfleet are not to interfere in the internal affairs of another species, especially the natural development of pre-warp civilizations, either by direct intervention, or technological revelation. When studying a planet's civilization, particularly during a planetary survey, the Prime Directive makes it clear that there is to be "No identification of self or mission. No interference with the social development of said planet. No references to space, other worlds, or advanced civilizations." (TOS: "Bread and Circuses") Starfleet personnel are required to understand that allowing cultures to develop on their own is an important right and therefore must make any sacrifice to protect cultures from contamination, even at the cost of their own lives.

    http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Prime_directive

  36. Re:What if deciding such things is not in your han by unity100 · · Score: 1

    it is freaky in that, if so, it means we are getting our logic applied to us. or even, maybe, mysteriously inheriting the logic of our 'overseers'.

    if both coincide, than it means we may be denied advanced technology, medicine, and whatnot, just like we deny those stuff to genuine tribes to preserve their 'originality' and their 'way of life'.

    it would be rather a whole galactic case of as above as below.

  37. Re:What if deciding such things is not in your han by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually follow the story.. Tribe known to science, not well known. reporters went in there about two weeks after, tribes-people had steel pans and cutlery, Hankered after the trappings e.g. Ciggies Whisky and Jazz mags. All a Bloke needs really.....

  38. Going by what we've seen from Aliens already by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 1

    1.) No interference with the internal development of pre-warp civilizations if they gestate within us.

  39. Re:What if deciding such things is not in your han by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    it is freaky in that, if so, it means we are getting our logic applied to us. or even, maybe, mysteriously inheriting the logic of our 'overseers'. if both coincide, than it means we may be denied advanced technology, medicine, and whatnot, just like we deny those stuff to genuine tribes to preserve their 'originality' and their 'way of life'.

    With one exception: the tribesmen are human, the same as us. The aliens? Maybe they're human too, but much more likely they're not (if they exist). If the tribesmen suddenly develop radio all on their own, we would laud them and bring them into our modern society. The aliens might *want* us to remain as we are; if we develop FTL drives, they may look at us as a television character that walked out of the screen: shock, horror, grab the nearest ultimate nullifier and pull the trigger...

  40. Earth Ethics. by bronney · · Score: 1

    Two things:

    1. We can't even agree on our own ethics as a species. The day we have a unified ethics system, is the day we can START wasting time working on a Universal System.

    2. Ethics is a human construct. For the non-human on earth, ethics does not exist. For outside of earth, even the Romulans and Vulcans are different from us.

    My suggestion for the guy is get a Wii, play some games and stop writing trash.

  41. Prime Directive? by rickshaf · · Score: 1

    Well, what we need is twofold: (1) A Prime Directive, and (2) A permanent prohibition of William Shatner entering outer space!

  42. How do we define levels of sentience? by mykos · · Score: 1

    We may find creatures someday that blur our current ideas of sentience, of what is a plant and what is an animal, and what does and doesn't traumatize the life we run in to.
    We subjugate and/or consume many forms of life on earth (horses, dogs, sheep). What is the line at which we decide that a creature is no longer enslavable/edible?

  43. Aliens are gay by FreakyGreenLeaky · · Score: 1

    Why are they bothering with all this? Everyone knows aliens are gay and enjoy probing anuses. We must simply reciprocate. There's a veritable library of books out there about this fact.

  44. George carlin said it best... by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

    ... do we really need "space ethics", "when the planets people are fucked?" (paraphrased)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

  45. Re:What if deciding such things is not in your han by unity100 · · Score: 1

    youre missing one thing - just as you can group all homo sapiens sapiens as human, instead of separating and classifying them as black, caucasian, asian, nordic, you can also classify all potential intelligent species as sentients.

    chances are high that, if such a concept exists, the aliens would be classifying themselves as 'sentients' as opposed to separate species, just like how we classify ourselves 'human' and work together in the u.n.

    if there is mirror imaging as such, it is quite possible that just as how we treat those tribesman as humans, but underdeveloped and needing protection of 'their ways of life', aliens could be treating us as 'sentients' too and think that we need protection for preserving our 'originality'.

  46. Re:What if deciding such things is not in your han by unity100 · · Score: 1

    doesnt matter, still someone would smuggle stuff in after they were discovered, if they havent been smuggled in already.

    the point is, practice is real. in brasil numerous tribes are isolated, its forbidden to conduct normal contact with them, and they can only be contacted under supervision and only certain items can be given to them or traded for. one of those tribes were the subject of a national geographic documentary. they also wore t shirts, but that was all they had. and the medicines allowed into the village.

  47. What to do with aliens by jakoye · · Score: 0

    I think "Kill them all" covers it.

    --
    Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven
  48. Alien Enemies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who would win in a fight? The United States now or the United States 100 years ago? That is right, even with just a 100 year gap in technology, we would WTFPWN those turn of the 20th century american capitalist pigs.

    Now imagine we run into an alien species...what the hell are they gonna do? If they are anything like us, and they probably are since they had to conquer their planet to, they are warlike, and they are gonna kill us dead.

    Step One: Completely Avoid Alien Life until we know it is less technologically advanced then us.

    Step Two: Keep Earth's Location secret as much as we can. (must get voyager back...)

    Step Three: Kill any aliens that seem in anyway hostile.