The Instigator
RR-MKIV
Pro (for)
The Contender
Autee135
Con (against)

Discourse on First Contact: Aliens are Likely to be Hostile [Continued]

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Autee135 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 511 times Debate No: 101872
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

RR-MKIV

Pro

Discourse on First Contact: Aliens are Likely to be Hostile [Continued]

[Note] This is a debate continued from my previous profile.

I will be assuming the mantle of pro, arguing that it is in our best interest to expect a hostile or contentious first contact event with extraterrestrial biological [or mechanical] entities. My opponent will be delegated as con. [Note] This debate should be impossible to accept. If you somehow manage to do so, you forfeit this debate. In saying this, please apply in the comments.

Rules:
[1] No trolling
[2] Equitable conduct
[3] No profanity
[4] No ad hominem
[5] Correct grammar and punctuation [minor mistakes accepted]

Structure:
[1] First round ACCEPTANCE ONLY
[2] Opening arguments
[3] Rebuttals
[4] Secondary arguments
[5] Tertiary arguments and rebuttals [Conclusion]

Definitions:
[1] Hostile - [Adj] Unfriendly; antagonistic. Of or belonging to a military enemy.
[2] First Contact - [Noun] First contact is a common science fiction theme about the first meeting between humans and extraterrestrial life, or of any sentient race's first encounter with another one [For this discussion, not fictional].
[3] Extraterrestrial - [Noun] A hypothetical or fictional being from outer space, especially an intelligent one.

Sources:
[1] www.merriam-webster.com
Autee135

Con

There have been many cases in history people are scared of something and in that fear they take steps which in turn cause their fear to come true. If we are prepared for an attack then the aliens will most likely see it as a challenge, or that we are threatening them. It's in humanities best interest to assume that any aliens that would come, would come in peace. If they do come with intent of harm, then there are already security measures up against other nations that we could use on the hostiles. I believe that it's a bad idea to take any more protective measures than are already up. Thank you for choosing to debate with me.
Debate Round No. 1
RR-MKIV

Pro

Oh, no problem darling [Im from the UK].

Con has aptly ignored first round as acceptance, but that's OK, no harm done. I like a challenge.

Given this is an almost entirely theoretical topic, there is difficulty in providing empirical data.

Making predictions about EBI's or EMI's and a first contact scenario may seem unrealistic, but given that there are set patterns we have so far seen the environment and life [as we know it] follow, we can make some basic predilections.

[1] The nature of life.
We have to consider the fundamental nature of life. That is, life seeks self preservation and advancement over all else. As life becomes more complex [Homo sapiens] it tends to be camouflaged once sentience gets involved. But the base impulse is still there. Its hard to imagine that first contact would occur without some sort of personal gain on the side of the ET's. The simple expenditure of the amount of resources that would be used to journey here would need to be warranted. By the same token, one could say that this expenditure is nothing to them, or they have alternate means. Then why even bother? By the time you throw in FTL travel, and whatever else they bring in tow, we would simply be minuscule to them. But any way you put it, the very nature of life dictates there must be a personal reason for them to come here [1]. One might presume it to be knowledge, but what could we possible offer them? Nothing. If life is as pervasive as stats makes it out to be, we would be one out of hundreds of millions of sentient species, certainly nothing to fawn over.

I would also like to point out this is a debate based around probability. While there is a chance for a benign or peaceful interaction, a hostile exchange is much more likely.

So what would be their incentive? My money is on resources. We know that water thus far is essential for life, and we happen to have two primary sources of water, one with life. Earth and Europa. Our solar system also offers two habitable pieces of land. Earth and Mars [Terra-forming, which I am sure would be no problem for them]. Metals for alloys, minerals, and organic compounds. You name it, we have it. And in order to use any or most of those, we would need to be evicted, simply because we are dependent upon what we have here.

[2] Likely to be predatory.
One of the most intriguing lines of thought in modern sciences is studying the means through which humans developed the highest form of intelligence here on Earth [Objective]. How did we accomplish this? Simple. Predation. We consume other organisms to meat our caloric needs faster and more effectively than non predators. This means we do not spend out entire life cycle foraging constantly to yield food. And in doing so we free up cognitive power with which to innovate and advance [Technology]. Its safe to say Aliens have evolved around the consumption of other animals as well, given it is the most effective method through which to power living tissue, and in turn intelligence. Surely Aliens have moved past basic hunting and livestock to more synthetic and efficient means? Perhaps, but the root nature is still there. Predators are categorically the most competitive and violent tier of organisms on Earth. Shouldn't they be enlightened enough to move beyond warfare? Not in my opinion. Simpy look at our society. War has escalated the more advanced we have become. Our means of systematically killing each other had advanced and the scale of conflicts with it. And we show no sign of letting up anytime soon. I believe its safe to say that If they have not destroyed themselves, they have not moved beyond the concept of conflict. Their competition with either us or themselves for resources may destroy us.

Simply put, its better safe than sorry. Its my opinion to keep ourselves as secreted as we can. Prevent SETI from trying to contact an alien race, reduce radio emotions, and stop putting up the welcome sign.

And if they did come, they technological gap would be so big there would be nothing we could feasibly do to defeat them. As Michio Kaku said, it would be like 'Bambi vs Godzilla', not some glorious action flick where we strike the coup de grace.
Autee135

Con

We are assuming that the ET's have life as we know it. I will concede about the nature of life, but that is the nature of life on Earth. We have no idea how any other beings live. Their incentive may be to just explore, see what's beyond their galaxy. I agree that they'd have to be decades ahead of us, but I also think, what if they look at us the way we look at lesser creatures. Typically, when you see a puppy, you think "awe that's adorable" it's smart to be a little apprehensive as they can bite, but they usually won't be able to cause much damage. We know that water is essential for Earth life, but it wouldn't necessarily be essential for an ET. If they see us as I think they will, they probably wouldn't want to get rid of us, they'd want to watch us live and grow and learn. Most of your arguments can be countered with, "that's how we know life to work, but they most likely wouldn't have the same type of life as us."

Trying to make ourselves invisible would just delay the inevitable. It doesn't matter if the come in 20 or 20,000,000 years, they will still be 100 times more advanced technologically than we are. Why make ourselves look like a threat when we can show that we mean no harm?
Debate Round No. 2
RR-MKIV

Pro

Thank you for a timely response.

I will concede that there is a probability for silicon or other such based lifeforms. Again, this is a debate of probability, not hard line truths. However, I would argue that point [1] out of my opening argument is universal for any form of life. If life does not seek self preservation, it ceases to exist. If life does not progress itself, procreate, or reproduce, it ceases to exist. Thus we can deduce that any form of life, no matter how advanced, has formed or evolved with a mechanism for self interest. It simply stands that every action an organism takes on this world is dictated by this fundamental tenant. ET will come here with interests of its own, that is an absolute. Otherwise, their is no motivation in which to do so. This is part of the reason that I argue pure altruism does not exist. There are always, and always will be, individual mandates that push us into selfless or selfish action. And if they do come here seeking something, be it knowledge, which I believe is unlikely, friendship, or resources, the technological gap would be so large we would not be talking in terms of canis to man, but ants to man. They would be light years ahead of is in terms of technology and science.

"that's how we know life to work, but they most likely wouldn't have the same type of life as us."

I would beg to differ. While we know silicon has the same propensity to bond into long chains or organic structures, it has a limited capacity to do so [Certain elements]. So far as we can deduce, carbon is best fit in biochemistry. Other findings from a lab also indicate that carbon based life forms best in conditions similar to our current situation: Earth. This means the odds are in the favor of carbon based life so far, which is best suited for environments similar to ours. This in itself dictates that most life would arise in a similar fashion to ourselves. In saying this, there are any number of scientific findings to come about in the future that could completely change our understanding of biology and biochemistry, but at the moment life has the highest probability to arise in a similar fashion to our own.

Just to clarify, carbon can either lose 4 or gain 4 valence electrons to form a stable covalent bond. This lets it bond with most everything on the PT and itself, into long complex chains. So far no other element has matched its capability to do so.

'Trying to make ourselves invisible would just delay the inevitable. It doesn't matter if the come in 20 or 20,000,000 years, they will still be 100 times more advanced technologically than we are. Why make ourselves look like a threat when we can show that we mean no harm?'

Perhaps, but technology can only progress so far. There is a theoretical limit to how far up the food chain a species can progress. But I think we already make ourselves look threatening if we possibly could. We are such a war plagued species, full of violence and unrest, perhaps it is WE who are not ready to venture out into the obsidian abyss. But secreting ourselves away buys us time to either destroy ourselves or resolve most of our internal discrepancies [I believe war will accompany humanity until the very end]. In doing so we may make ourselves better suited for a first contact scenario, technologically or psychologically.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Autee135 1 year ago
Autee135
I do
Posted by RR-MKIV 1 year ago
RR-MKIV
No problem. Just let me know if you want to continue this debate.
Posted by Autee135 1 year ago
Autee135
Sorry, my computer broke and I lost all of my passwords.
Posted by Autee135 1 year ago
Autee135
Sorry, my computer broke and I lost all of my passwords.
Posted by Autee135 1 year ago
Autee135
I would like to debate, i'm not a troll, and i'm really good at debating.
Posted by RR-MKIV 1 year ago
RR-MKIV
Both of you: Apply in the comments. The criteria are used as a filter to prevent trolls from accepting.
Posted by TheBenC 1 year ago
TheBenC
I always wondered why so many people would think aliens would be hostile. If they have the ability to find us and reach us, they have almost unlimited resources and energy. What would they want from us that they have to take it by force?

Also, why make a debate that is impossible to accept? That is a dbag move.
Posted by byaka2013 1 year ago
byaka2013
Wish I could accept it- I don't match the criteria.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.