Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

Let me ask this then: Which groups of humans are lesser beings compared to other groups of humans?

Hahahaha, you want to open that can of worms? Go watch a documentary of Ashkenazi IQ and scientific achievement if you want to but I'll leave it at that; we all gonna get b& and v&
I'm assuming you also find that the cannibal, headhunting and footbinding practices were equally as valid as pretty much everyone else who wasn't running around collecting skulls for the skull throne, breaking little girls' feet or eating their dead?

Because you've been very broad in terms of what defines "Greater" or "Lesser". Animals are lesser because they don't build buildings or make art. Ok. Fair enough. I eat burgers, I'm not gonna argue that cows should be allowed to vote.  Does that make someone who can't paint like Michelangelo a lesser being
compared to Michelangelo?

Yes

What is the hierarchy of human endeavor?

Achievement, ability and potential

Are humans in the past lesser beings simply because they had less access to technology, even if they were intellectually similar?

No, they are similar

Are people with less access to technology TODAY lesser beings?

You left out how intellectually similar they are

  Are all human beings equal? Are we as good as our best member?

No, yes; also weakest as our weakest member

The reason why I balk at your definition is that it's fine when you use it against stuff like animals.  Yeah, I'm willing to say humans are basically better than insects in most ways. But it starts to get weird when you try to apply it to other sentient beings.

How?

And Since this is a discussion about aliens, thats what immediately comes to mind; two species using this metric judging each other and invariably considering themselves to be superior.

The very fact that you exist is proof that sapients are capable of thinking themselves inferior.

I say we settle this biophilisophical argument via facing off the argumentees digital achievements in combat.
on the one hand, 400,000 gusars, and in the other, planetwide psychic orbital bombardment.
The above method is equally valid to the argument you two are having.
Neither of you will change the other's opinion. Neither of you is objectively right. Neither of you are arguing about the political effect of sentient mars rocks.

Now it's true neither of us are going to change each others opinions but whilst I was talking about mars rocks this joker was talking about Texans so I rest my case with the addendum that this amuses me and someone whose express aim was to explain as assholey as possible deserves it

I think it's very related to the political effect of sentient mars rocks. Mostly because it's the kind of argument that such a thing would bring up. Would we have the "Right" to go there and mess with them? Are they lesser beings compared to us? And how do we judge that?  I mean, what if these things have very complex thoughts, a deep philosophy, all sorts of advanced thinking, but just don't build buildings.  I mean, we need buildings because we need shelter but a rock is a rock and it don't need shit. Is a society that has no structures necessarily lesser than one that has large complex structures?

I dunno. But I think it's a bit rash to judge so quickly.

There is absolutely zero validity for this discussion and it's basically just the kind of argument you'd bring up. There is not right to go there, we go there and we mess with them. They are lesser if they are lesser, if not they are not. We judge that mostly based off of how intelligent they are. Ironically for one trying to stress that we should shy away from human thought everything you are saying is framed in terms of interacting with other humans.
*EDIT
Seriously, to imagine that in such a scenario where we could be answering the question to whether we are not alone, to whether there are equals out there waiting to be found and talk to... Something that would irreversibly alter the course of human civilization! To imagine that when faced with the potential for scientific discovery, and human proliferation - planets to explore and see, and people would reject all these things because that would be "ignorant?" Or "arrogant?" I am tired of the pessimists and unimaginative who shun innovation and humanity taking the next big leap from a global world to galactic world. I don't want to have some bizarre anthropomorphized homo sapiens pre-guilt of oppressed marsbugs on top of that.

[ShadowHammer]

To answer the topic, I think that space programs would get a lot more funding, various extremists would get all friggy, and there would be massive and largely uninformed debate in both government and the internet, with various celebrities and important people spouting off completely uninformed opinions, with only a few informed positions standing out among the babble. The Pope would probably say something non-specific but applicable, such as urging them to meet with the aliens peacefully and non-disruptively.
Overall, America, India, maybe China, maybe SpaceX would all send scientific missions very quickly to study the lifeforms, and they would all try real hard not to change it from its current state so that they could study how it behaves under normal circumstances. If it was intelligent, I'm pretty sure that after lots of ethical debate, the scientists just wouldn't be able to help themselves from making first contact, despite the historical precedents for what happens when humans make first contact with other groups of humans.
This ended up sounding a lot more cynical than I meant it to. I really think that it would be super awesome and world-changing for the better if we found life on another planet.

Slightly less on-topic, this is a mighty entertaining argument, and I have a question to pose that sort of relates to it: if we found intelligent life on mars, and that life was living in an exceptionally peaceful, happy, and well organized society, but technologically was very far behind us, which would you consider more advanced, and why?

[SirQuiamus]

I haven't been following this very closely (internet arguments are the devil btw <3), but isn't this a bit semantic? what you should really be asking is who would win in a fight, not who's "Superior". 

We are currently waging a hugely expensive war of attrition against a tiny contingent of renegade bacteria that cause serious diseases in humans. Our chances of winning an all-out, no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners war against every single one of them are not good, suffice it to say. Most of them seem unwilling to fight us, though, so perhaps there is yet hope for a diplomatic solution... the difficult part is contacting their leaders for negotiations.

Also, they invented the electric motor, don't you know? I wonder why they never took out a patent for it...

[That Wolf]

I dont know about you guys, but I feel like theres a hunter around somewhere waiting to kill me...
I didnt eat your live stock!
Its weird because I am the animal of the hunt and now I am being hunted. Just make it quick, do it already kill me out here in the woods I was born! My people have been here for ages and you come here ruin our system put fences up so the buffalo cant migrate kill my children.
I have nothing anymore so just kill me.
We all know that the government is on good terms with sentient alien life and that they created the pyramids, dont be silly. They hide it cause keeping the fanatical religious people as consumers is easier and more profitable than saying "we lied"
Fuck answering the OP we all know lordbucketbong starts these vauge discusions for his own sick entertainment.
But heres the answer to the OP: lets say mars is inhabited whats the results?= its inhabited. Its right there in the fucking question.
The real question we should be asking is to ourselves, am I pretty

[Kot]

Spoiler: I looked briefly at previous two pages and I had zero idea how this happened or even what is happening. (click to show/hide)

Also, I wanted to say that only thing this would change is that the Australia wouldn't be, finally, the shittiest place to live in.

[Flying Dice]

If I'd made a "I bet this is going to devolve into pointless bickering" post a week ago, I'd be able to say that I called it now. Darn.

[LordBucket]

Strange as it seems that I would feel the need to do this, I'd like to ask people to be civil in my thread, please. There's really no reason for a topic like this to descend to some of the name-calling I'm seeing.

[Loud Whispers]

I'm pretty sure that after lots of ethical debate, the scientists just wouldn't be able to help themselves from making first contact, despite the historical precedents for what happens when humans make first contact with other groups of humans.

Should be fine, there's next to nil chance that either side would be wiped out by alien disease. And if both sides were intelligent they'd be careful just to be sure.

This ended up sounding a lot more cynical than I meant it to. I really think that it would be super awesome and world-changing for the better if we found life on another planet.

To be fair, wasn't *that* cynical.

Slightly less on-topic, this is a mighty entertaining argument, and I have a question to pose that sort of relates to it: if we found intelligent life on mars, and that life was living in an exceptionally peaceful, happy, and well organized society, but technologically was very far behind us, which would you consider more advanced, and why?

Well the first question I'd ask is if they were a threat, the second if we could communicate and that'd be my third. The first is no for now, unclear on the second - and I think it'd be clear whose civilization was far more advanced, largely because I wouldn't exactly hold up a well-organized hippy commune to be the pinnacle of civilization. Moreover it wouldn't really matter how their society was then; that would no doubt change the moment humans made contact just as it would change us. How exciting it would be to see aliens shitposting on the internet!

[Harry Baldman]

I'm wondering how much convergent evolution we can expect in the development of sapience, if any? There was this xenopsychology article I read once that said "ooh, but we could just as well meet aliens that exceed human data processing speeds by the same margin logarithmically speaking as we exceed the processing speeds of plants", but that just doesn't seem terribly likely to me on account of the shittons of energy that running a system like that in a body would take.

I mean, if we find aliens, odds are they'd be made of carbon, probably use macromolecules for similar purposes (if not the same exact macromolecules), and if they even become multicellular I'd expect the similarities would go even further. Maybe they wouldn't be so different from us after all. And to create a humanlike society, wouldn't they need to be pretty damn humanlike themselves?

[Grim Portent]

I'm wondering how much convergent evolution we can expect in the development of sapience, if any? There was this xenopsychology article I read once that said "ooh, but we could just as well meet aliens that exceed human data processing speeds by the same margin logarithmically speaking as we exceed the processing speeds of plants", but that just doesn't seem terribly likely to me on account of the shittons of energy that running a system like that in a body would take.

I mean, if we find aliens, odds are they'd be made of carbon, probably use macromolecules for similar purposes (if not the same exact macromolecules), and if they even become multicellular I'd expect the similarities would go even further. Maybe they wouldn't be so different from us after all. And to create a humanlike society, wouldn't they need to be pretty damn humanlike themselves?

Within reason yes, they would need to be similar to the organisms from earth.

Barring something highly unusual the preferences for biological molecules are going stable ones made of common elements, this will select for carbon as the basis for most life since it forms more stable large molecules than other atoms with 4 available electrons for bonding due to being the smallest of those elements.

The paths taken by evolution are likely to be similar on any earth like planet, convergent evolution is very common on earth when circumstances are similar to one another. The most energy efficient solution to a problem tends to be the same barring some significant change in circumstances.

Though the sort of intelligence that forms could be quite different, various life forms on earth show high levels of intelligence, though apes come closest to humans. I could feasibly see a bird or cephalopod analogue becoming sapient given the right pressures, both have exhibited tool use and various levels of communication skills. What this would result in is obviously unknown, as we know little about how non-humans perceive the world or think.

[Loud Whispers]

I'm wondering how much convergent evolution we can expect in the development of sapience, if any? There was this xenopsychology article I read once that said "ooh, but we could just as well meet aliens that exceed human data processing speeds by the same margin logarithmically speaking as we exceed the processing speeds of plants", but that just doesn't seem terribly likely to me on account of the shittons of energy that running a system like that in a body would take.
I mean, if we find aliens, odds are they'd be made of carbon, probably use macromolecules for similar purposes (if not the same exact macromolecules), and if they even become multicellular I'd expect the similarities would go even further. Maybe they wouldn't be so different from us after all. And to create a humanlike society, wouldn't they need to be pretty damn humanlike themselves?

The other obvious development path would be an antlike species, where siblings proliferate their genes more by helping a mother than by having their own kids.

[Isngrim]

The paths taken by evolution are likely to be similar on any earth like planet, convergent evolution is very common on earth when circumstances are similar to one another. The most energy efficient solution to a problem tends to be the same barring some significant change in circumstances.

not to say that they would look like anything on earth,look at the variation between species on earth,and remember that another earth-like planet would have an entirely different geological and meteorological history that could produce a near infinite number of variations.

something i just thought of: a planet with little iron and lots of copper,life with blood might have dark brown or green blood in an oxygen based atmosphere (using copper oxide instead of iron oxide)

[Grim Portent]

The paths taken by evolution are likely to be similar on any earth like planet, convergent evolution is very common on earth when circumstances are similar to one another. The most energy efficient solution to a problem tends to be the same barring some significant change in circumstances.

not to say that they would look like anything on earth,look at the variation between species on earth,and remember that another earth-like planet would have an entirely different geological and meteorological history that could produce a near infinite number of variations.

something i just thought of: a planet with little iron and lots of copper,life with blood might have dark brown or green blood in an oxygen based atmosphere (using copper oxide instead of iron oxide)

If memory serves copper based blood is less efficient than iron based at binding oxygen, it's quite common in terrestrial invertebrates, but I don't think any vertebrates have it. I'd expect the life on a low iron planet to be sluggish or smaller than on earth relative to atmospheric oxygen density.

[Arx]

The paths taken by evolution are likely to be similar on any earth like planet, convergent evolution is very common on earth when circumstances are similar to one another. The most energy efficient solution to a problem tends to be the same barring some significant change in circumstances.

not to say that they would look like anything on earth,look at the variation between species on earth,and remember that another earth-like planet would have an entirely different geological and meteorological history that could produce a near infinite number of variations.

something i just thought of: a planet with little iron and lots of copper,life with blood might have dark brown or green blood in an oxygen based atmosphere (using copper oxide instead of iron oxide)

If memory serves copper based blood is less efficient than iron based at binding oxygen, it's quite common in terrestrial invertebrates, but I don't think any vertebrates have it. I'd expect the life on a low iron planet to be sluggish or smaller than on earth relative to atmospheric oxygen density.

Yeah, no vertebrates. I think the largest critters with haemocyanin would have to be squid.

As for life on other planets, it's possible they'd just have a respiratory system more comparable to arthropod spiracles than to lungs, in order to get more air through faster.

[Baffler]

The paths taken by evolution are likely to be similar on any earth like planet, convergent evolution is very common on earth when circumstances are similar to one another. The most energy efficient solution to a problem tends to be the same barring some significant change in circumstances.

not to say that they would look like anything on earth,look at the variation between species on earth,and remember that another earth-like planet would have an entirely different geological and meteorological history that could produce a near infinite number of variations.

something i just thought of: a planet with little iron and lots of copper,life with blood might have dark brown or green blood in an oxygen based atmosphere (using copper oxide instead of iron oxide)

If memory serves copper based blood is less efficient than iron based at binding oxygen, it's quite common in terrestrial invertebrates, but I don't think any vertebrates have it. I'd expect the life on a low iron planet to be sluggish or smaller than on earth relative to atmospheric oxygen density.

Yeah, no vertebrates. I think the largest critters with haemocyanin would have to be squid.

As for life on other planets, it's possible they'd just have a respiratory system more comparable to arthropod spiracles than to lungs, in order to get more air through faster.

But just because they use the same inefficient oxygen carrier protein as our own arthropods doesn't necessarily mean they use the same inefficient systems for moving that protein around. Even though hemocyanin only carries 1 O₂ for hemoglobin's 4, if I remember right the bigger barrier by far to wider oxygen distribution is the open circulatory system. They also don't bind oxygen carriers to blood cells, further reducing efficiency. They'd have to use more of the protein for the same result, but it's not too farfetched to say that evolution there favored those that did. They still may well end up smaller or more sluggish on average, but I wouldn't count on all life being like that.

Edit: And why even use the same hemocyanin as is found on Earth? A larger molecule with more oxygen binding sites is entirely within the realm of possibility as well.