The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Coexistence with other Intelligent Species

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2018 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 458 times Debate No: 110153
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




This is an argument, not about whether they exist now, but about when they exist in the future. The first and foremost alternate intelligent life form to Humans likely to emerge would be Artificially Intelligent non-organic lifeforms. Following that would be genetically mutated or modified animals.

With modern Humanity as the template, it seems almost inevitable that more intelligent species would emerge as a result of our presence. Now, different species may easily have different natural thought tendencies, but whether or not that would lead to more bad or good is a very difficult question. Of course, like most things the truth of the matter is likely a gray area.

Suppose there is scenario alike 'The Federation', a collective of various intelligent species of different traits who are willing to coexist and collaborate. I think for most people, if they were to go out into the Universe, they would prefer this scenario. If other species have somewhat similar thinking, then it's even more likely for such a thing to exist.

In a Federation scenario you have a much wider variety of ways of thinking. Inspiration could be more easily drawn from many sources. With multiple species that have advanced in various ways, it becomes more likely for scientific advancement to come more easily which in the long run is a factor in the survival of any species so it is mutually beneficial.

In a Federation there is another benefit, although it is more easily applied to those who are more long-lived. The plurality of life and exposure to the various cultures that result from a multitude of intelligent species is likely to be much greater than what a single intelligent species can achieve on it's own. (At least in a limited time frame)

Without such a social construct as the federation, if it were a human mind, the will to live may easily fade over time. If we were to someday develop a greater longevity, the longevity of our hearts and minds would be more easily developed within such a collective.

Of course, there are always counter-points to such benefits. Betrayal and distrust can exist in relationships between humans and it can easily exist between different species as well. If a Federation exists then, although unlikely, there may come to be some technology in the future we develop that may easily be coveted. It is not as though technology has to be overwhelmingly advanced to be valuable after all. It need only be unique.

Even if a majority of the species in the federation have good intentions, there is always the possibility of a few bad eggs existing. Plus there is also the possibility of forces outside of that federation existing. Mixing with the federation before having sufficient strength could lead to our own annihilation, even if simply through an information leak others would think nothing of.

The alternative to joining the Federation would more or less to be Isolationists. Maintaining friendly relations with the federation would likely be entirely possible but whether our technology surges or remains eternally inferior would depend on us. Of course, this could also lead to annihilation if we just sit around with no backing for an extensive period of time.

In my opinion, the 2nd option would still lead to groups breaki ng off to try and join the federation eventually anyways. Assuming if the federation already exists, that they would be willing to let them join.


While co-existence with other sentient, intelligent species may be somewhat possible, we have to consider the simple fact that even as a single species, we're divided beyond repair. Not just by the expected such as race, sex and sexuality but borders, place of origin, language, intelligence, simply whatever you can think of. Coexistence may be POSSIBLE, however is it worth it?

1. Constant in-fighting. For this point, I'll be taking bringing the very recent and relevant topic, Trump. An entire country is divided half and half just fighting over who it is that signs papers. Why this is important is because the US presidents don't serve much purpose other than being a spiritual leader. Even without a president the government could function just fine.
This is what comes to mind, let's say we have 2 species and somehow, magically all other conflicts got resolved. There is only just a slight tinge of xenophobia from let's say 10% of each species. If one species' ambassador was a tad too friendly, this 10% can quite easily march for revolution. A well-known case of a minority rising up from basically nothing to leading a nation would probably have to be Hitler's rise to power.
There is also the fact, that conquests and genocides are always sparked against people that seem 'alien' to us. In this case, that would quite literally be what is happening.

2. Resource Wars. We most likely will share resources we need, as we have not found evidence of anything but carbon-based lifeforms. I'm going to disregard artificial/robotic species as we would most likely try to destroy or salvage their brethren for technology, upsetting them heavily and sparking a war (If they have the same values as us, which they would probably do to have curiosity).
We'd have to share resources, and what if we have an abundance of wheat, while their home-planet has a lot of oil? Well, we'll simply make trade, right? That is quite right, however if we look at trading through history, all of them collapsed because one side simply got greedy. None of us are immortal, and thus one moronic leader is enough to destroy the entire relationship over greed. (Once again, greed is a necessity for curiosity)

3. They're not like us. All of what I previously stated have been going on with the idea that we share the same mindset as them. However, that won't be the case. The only thing they need is curiosity, and aside from that we can be entirely different. They may be absolute xenophobes or may be peace-loving animals who do not realize we are using them. They could enslave us, for whatever reason. Steal our resources and those of our solar system. They could simply be looking to mindlessly expand like an artificial race would, maybe even making every planet inhabitable just to keep biological races from having it. Other species are absolute wildcards, as we have not been able to observe any other evolutionary path that isn't our own. Did you know that multiple animals on earth kiss each-other to show affection, not just us?

4. Us. We're an idiotic race, very much in their infancy. War is absolutely inevitable and until we are able to have a single nation be stable and not collapse after 1000 years, then we're ready to make contact. Until then, we're better off alone.
Debate Round No. 1


The first and foremost reason for Coexistence is simple: SCIENCE!

Although most people at this point and time do not realize this, as a species the advancement of science is essential to the survival of our species. Not just against the enemies within our own species and against other potentially existing civilizations, but first and foremost against nature. In the perspective of an aged civilization a fledgling planet should be considered to have a small window in which it can develop life and find a way to survive outside their original home.

Now, maybe some super species may be capable of doing that naturally somewhere way out there, but I'm willing to bet that is not common. Our solar systems revolve about black holes and those black holes revolve about even more massive black holes, and the visible stratification of the Universe just keeps getting bigger.

After a civilization escapes their home system and is able to survive the destruction of a planet or solar system, what is the next step to continue ensuring survival? They must find a way to escape the grasp of a Black Hole (Which will likely be a large scientific conundrum once you get to that point). Then, after that, they have to escape the pull of an even bigger black hole, which may have a change in qualitative nature for all we know. And that stratification may very well go on eternally, and even go beyond the boundary of what we consider our universe which we may want to outlive someday.

Unless their natural instinct is simply to expand and kill everything that is not them, at least a portion of them will always be seeking the most efficient way to advance for the sake of survival. Even humanity, although people say we dont care about the long term, the vast majority care at least subconsciously and a number of people dedicate themselves to ensuring long term survival. This should also be a kind of survival instinct which most species should have if they can live that long.

Now, there comes the question of nature VS nurture from psychology and sociology. As a species, does the nurturing of an individual have a larger influence on the way they think, or does the natural networking of their neural pathways determine how they think from birth? I would say that as a species, the more nurturing is able to change the way they think, the more likely they are to successfully integrate into a collective of species.

There are also some features of conflict that may easily change once we step onto the stage of an elder civilization. The stage of war could develop in a multitude of ways, however in my opinion things will trend towards greater and greater disorder over time. There may even be entire planets which act similarly to warring states, where a Federation like existence may rule over them like an emperor, ignoring the squabbles between kings.

In fighting is indeed something inevitable, but the scale of the wars may easily fluctuate from small to large. A Federation waging war against powerful solitary races may cause cataclysmic events for countless planets. When the large scale wars occur there would likely be less inner squabbles.

In my opinion, overall, large scale rebellions within an elder civilization seems unlikely. Even if you can manage faster than light speed travel and communication, the distances between habitable planets would still be consistently large and take a lot of time. It seems unlikely that singular leaders would exist for any one species once that species is spread among countless cubic lightyears.

Even the rebellions on different planets would likely feel disconnected from those on other planets, thus it would be difficult to pull off a significant rallying power for a rebel war. This is where the traits of a species becomes significant. In an elder civilization the species itself must trend towards a specific behavior specifically for them to form any semblance of organized behavior.

So, for us to successfully integrate with and form a collective there must be an overall trend in our species where our nature pushes us to follow the nurture method suitable for forming a Federation. If we even so much as have 51% of our population that actually is nurtured properly, then when that quantity spreads over a countless distance then that side can already suppress the other. Considering that 51% has the backing of a Federation as well, it is easy to see which side would win assuming no 3rd party steps in. Just that amount should already be enough for a species to be of benefit to a collective.

The suppressive effect on the other 49% becomes greater once your planets are mixed together or surrounded with the planets of other federation type species. Of course, if that percentage is greater naturally that would be better. But the percentage should also increase due to that suppressive effect and also due to simple increase in exposure. As over time the culture of Humanity would become steeped in the nature of a collective federation.

Of course, enslavement is also a possibility, but unless it is by a solitary long lasting species we will eventually make a comeback

In regards to resources.. honestly, I think that's the thing that would be concerned about the least in an elder civilization. There are countless lifeless oceans of Water out there, planets made of diamond, stars filled with energy, planets filled with breathable air.
The only time resources might become a concern is when a species or collective of species stagnates in a single solar system for an very extended period of time. At that time, the war would still be less about resources and more like a claim to ancestral lands or ideals. While resources may be used as the excuse for war, it would be an excuse as the level of technology should be able to circumvent such issues.

Otherwise, if a collective were to grow to a point where they are occupying virtually all usable systems surrounding their local black hole, and they still can't escape. Then that's when there would be a big problem. Huge wars would likely break out, with larger species trying their best to devour the smaller ones and smaller ones desperately gathering to resist the larger ones.

As for the wildcard species which would attack and are unaccepting of our ways, of course we will fight them if it is something we cannot possibly change ourselves. And there will be political squabbles between those who collaborate to fight them. Regardless of whether that is just us, or us and a collective.

To the last point, in my personal opinion, there is absolutely no reason to think it's necessary to have a singular nation ruling a species for it to be considered stable. If a species were able to have such a thing it would indicate they are a species which heavily lean towards a natural mindset. So it would be a disqualifying factor.

Overall though, for short term, if we are exposed to an elder civilization hopefully we can swiftly catch up after receiving exposure. Then at that point scientific exchange and some limited mix in social structures could be greatly beneficial.

In the long term, I think it's inevitable that Humanity will split apart with parts of it forming isolated states. Due to a portion of Humanity remaining in the federation those isolationist may easily be treated as though they are just an honorable internal argument. Not something worth waging war over at the federation level.
Most parts however would be combining or forming a Federation based around collecting those that emulate our own natural tendencies.


I have to say, that you did mention trying the escape the pull of the black holes we revolve around, however that will be quite unnecessary as getting close would take hundred thousands of years, and getting a stable orbit around something is not really that difficult once we become something considered 'space-faring'. Now, onto my actual arguments.

1. Singular species-wide overlord. While this may be a possibility, I find them coming to existence very hard to believe. Who would ever agree to that? Let's look at Europe for this example. The nations there are almost a constant at this point. Europe becoming a singular nation is mostly impossible at this point due to cultures and things of the sort, not to mention the global powers' constant meddling. Maybe these things change when we have more land to conquer, but I highly doubt it.

Even if an overlord, so-to-say came into existence as you said, the species will become highly divided. And this is not an opinion. Unless we are always being forcefully "intermingled" with our brethren from other planets, then we'll eventually lose our ability to procreate children with them, simply due to the fact that we're too different. This is a real possibility, though it won't happen for a long time. A singular leader is unlikely, even a council isn't a possibility for humanity. A large parliament without a singular leader, voting on everything is almost the only possibility.

2. Resources. You may think that resources won't be important since we could technically just harvest our sun's energy and then with a currently unknown technology, force atoms into existence in specified patterns. Or simply because we can just find new planets with resources right? Wrong. Unless it is in our solar system, we're very unlikely to be able to harvest. We're in a quite packed part of the galaxy, and even here it is more than 2 light years to the nearest solar system. Communication with radio signals (won't ever change, as this is a very broad term) would need very specialized equipment to be able to focus that much, not to mention the 2 year delay.

Communication is key to everything. In not-so recent times, instant long-distance communication did not exist and so, politics was quite difficult. However now, we even have a direct instantanious link between Washington and Moscow, as if it were nothing. To prevent misunderstandings, war, simply whatever we need to be able to communicate with our colonies. However that is simply impossible at that distance.

Now comes some fast ones!

3. FTL is most likely impossible. This is quite simple point. Most designs nowadays do technically carry us FTL (though none of them have been tested due to the immense energy needed), however to the outside world you still move slower than light, you just feel like it is faster as time is relative.

4. The Fermi Paradox. Basically, we'll probably die before we become space-faring as did *probably* many others before us.

5. Heat death. Death will always welcome our species with open hands, we cannot escape it, why try?

6. Survival of the fittest. We may be smart compared to other animals socially, but maybe being our definition of social is idiotic and misguided. Maybe we are not the fittest, more like live stock?

7. Science. Like hell they'll give it us for free (unless they're the previously mentioned 'spiritually enlightened' type, if those exist), and what can we give in exchange for knowledge? Energy? No. Maybe becoming a vassal would satisfy them to give it to us, but even that is pushing it.

8. A new frontier. We don't know anything about the outside world, maybe someone is watching this very text, or maybe they simply don't exist. Maybe a god does exist and he created only us, maybe we are just ancestors to a species that tried resetting itself as it thought they failed. The problem is, there is too many ifs that we'll probably never find out. (See, lack of ability to communicate)
Debate Round No. 2


The conundrum of a Black Hole could be considered as an extension of the Fermi Paradox, although a Black Hole has a much longer life than a star, it is reasonable to say they still have a life cycle. At the end of that life cycle, regardless of whether it is it's collapse that pulls everything in or the debris and shockwaves ejected when or if it explodes, many of the solar systems that orbit it are finished.

Furthermore, it's not like it's impossible for another black hole to be on a collision course with us over time. At that point you either need to escape the pull of the black hole or that's likely the end. As all of the solar systems will be thrown out of balance for countless years, and the chaotic gravitation resulting from a Black Hole flying through could completely destroy life or at least make it significantly more scarce.

Life would be on the brink up until the systems reform to be orderly again or local life can ride the shockwaves and enter the pull of another Black Hole. Of course, the latter would probably require both plenty of science and luck in and of itself, and the amount of living things that would survive in comparison to everything that was around the black hole might be miniscule.

Aside from that, the single species-wide overlord seems much more plausible if the species leans more towards their mindset being determined by nature. If the entire species has an almost uniform thought process, it doesn't seem like there would be much resistance to any orders they receive from their peers, and their purpose can be much more unified.

This becomes especially easier if a species possesses something like a Hive Mind, where a single mind occupies an entire planet. These kinds of species would be significantly more prone to isolate themselves because they are 'Unique' and likely would not care for the opinions of others. Similar to animals which follow their primal instincts, but their instincts tell them how to make scientific advancements.

A Federation type wouldn't be like an actual Emperor, that was more or less an analogy. A Federation is more like an alliance or an Idea, with members simply saying they are a part of it and communicating and taking joint action in more or less localized areas. (Nearby collections of star systems) There may easily be many different federations, with portions of some changing sides to others at times. More or less all those inside a single federation will have similar thoughts and nurturing systems.

It's also likely for federations to purposefully raise up new species that possess traits that match the thought systems of their own federation, and wait for them to bud in order to get new blood that might strengthen them. Of course, it would likely take time to observe and make adjustments before one could ascertain whether a new species would truly be worthwhile to add to the pack. (For people who like conspiracy theories, there you go.)

Of course, even within a Federation, species would most likely keep their best stuff for themselves. Only more common stuff might possibly be shared for some benefits here or there. It's in their interest as well to share a small amount so that they can reap the benefits of any unique technology that might come into being due to the fresh mindset being brought to the table. And so that we can be somewhat useful when a conflict with another group comes up.

And I'm sorry but I just don't see it likely that an advanced civilization would even use radio signals for communications. There are much better options for communication that can be developed and we aren't even far off from that right now. Radio signals specifically refers to the set of light waves with a wavelength starting from about 1 millimeter and any wave length higher than that.

Thus, radio signals all travel at the speed of light.. because they are light in the first place. Though, you already knew that, but for other people who are reading.. So yeah, if you don't find a better form of communication that'd be an issue. However, using 'spooky action at a distance' in quantum physics it's already possible to do FTL communications.

The only thing left to make true communication utilizing spooky action is to complete a basic quantum model and a method to utilize it to cause quantum entanglement between two systems. Spooky action at a distance and gravitation are easily associated concepts, they were a part of the game from the beginning that was always capable of acting, or causing reactions, at a speed faster than light.

If there is a communication system in older civilizations it is easy enough to imagine it would be based off of such a method.

In regards to faster than light travel, it isn't truly necessary for it to exist for such social constructs to form. Self sustaining ecosystems could be created on a transport in space. It is entirely possible for us to escape our current solar system even using our current technology, it would just use way more resources than anyone would care to waste and take a lot of time. Then finding appropriate locations for terraforming and harvesting resources would also be a significant issue, but it could probably be solved as well given time, not to say it wouldn't cost a lot to do so, and probably not just in terms of money.

If we do want to do FTL travel there are a few theoretical ways you could go about it though. If you can make either a Pseudo Black Hole or Pseudo White Hole, those could be used to travel FTL. Alternatively, if you can somehow find materials that cause reactions so violent you can forcefully break the rules and materials that allow you to resist the conterreaction the universe takes against you for doing so, that's also good.

(Though personally I don't think such a material exists, at least not in enough parts that we can build a ship and move around with it unless we are acting nouveau riche)

So, unless there is more phenomenon we haven't observed or possibilities we haven't considered the pseudo Black/White holes (basically wormholes) are the best option. The question then is how to make them and how to handle them so we don't destroy ourselves. To create such a thing, we need an even better understanding of gravitation, action at a distance, the quantum world, and more or less we need a very good Unified Field Theory.

Of course, that is just my guess on what we would need to know before we could even know how to approach the issue.
In the case of a pseudo black hole, you more or less are trying to simulate the state of the core of a Black Hole. It can be observed from virtually all reactions that matter continually attempts to conform to a more neutral state.

Thus the core of a Black Hole is likely similar to a cell, filtering out the extremely miniscule particulates from the countless that have been pulled in, to attempt to assimilate them and achieve a more neutralized state while rejecting the leftovers. To do so, the black hole core must form an effectively perfect neutralized state. A state so perfect that it nullifies the gravitation and spooky action at a distance that affects normal matter.

Such a process of neutralization should be so strong that it can allow such a massive gravitational pull, while simultaneously allowing it to retain a stable position while being relatively unaffected by the mass surrounding it.

To create a pseudo Black Hole you would need to create an artificial membrane which simulates the actions of a Black holes core, even without the actual neutralization process occurring. This can effectively cut off the affect of gravitation and spooky action at a distance for the materials within the membrane.. unfortunately, it would likely also cause issues with retaining the original structures of those within so that would be another issue to resolve.

However, if you can manage it, with a little effort you could fly about the universe like a maneuverable cannonball within your pseudo black hole. You would likely be moving so fast that it would probably be best to just call it instantaneous. Plus the energy required shouldn't be unreasonable, although the knowledge to pull it off successfully will be.

Alternatively you could create a more literal wormhole, create two partial pseudo black holes such that they are quantum entangled, then the connection between the two might be able to be stabilized such that matter can pass through.

In regards to all the 'ifs' there is no reason why we can't figure them out. Personally I'm putting my all into figuring them out, and honestly I have taken hardly any classes on astrophysics, but I'm still about to get my degrees in both Physics and Computer Science. I understand at least the basics of how this stuff works.

Finally, in regards to death, I think most people are not suicidal? Although people usually accept death at the end of day, I do not believe there is no one else who is unwilling to slip into it silently when the sun still shines and something can be done about it.

The unknown is filled with things that could destroy us, and if we are already oppressed unknowingly.. Might as well let them know what we are capable of if we are doomed anyway. In an infinite existence when humanity emerges again, maybe we can win that time if we stay true to themselves.

If we are doomed, let's be doomed sooner than later? The more of the truth we are able to see the more entertaining life seems to be. A bit of care should certainly be given to prevent disasters, but staying inside a shell, I don't think it's in Humanities nature.

Personally, I don't care about if there is a Federation of what not but I'd like to see one if I could. Or I'd like to push towards one's creation if I could. I think it'd be fantastic despite all the issues, so I'm a good bit biased in this.

Well, I'm pretty much out of space, so that's all I got. PEACE!


Since this is the last people will see of this topic, I'll take a lot more open mindset rather than the political black-and-white debate type I've been using. Also, I'll keep it a lot shorter as well, since I've already said what I wanted to and the readers have already had to sit through 30 000+ words. (I'm so sorry!)

1. FTL Communication. Via quantum mechanics we've been able to 'entangle' particles and those two basically share information with each-other instantaneously. In a literal sense. However, I've not been a fan of quantum mechanics my entire life as I am quite a hands-on guy who'd rather have a short but slightly inaccurate equation than a hard-to-understand, complex and perfect one. Quantum mechanics has a lot of variables we're simply not aware of because once we observe them, their value changes. And though they may be able to carry information PERFECTLY from one side to another in the future, I highly doubt it.

I recommend reading up on people that think quantum supremacy may not be possible due to the so-called noise. I am using much the same principle. It basically states that since we cannot achieve the perfect conditions, there will be uncertainty as we do need to observe it, which results in noise. And decoding and fine-tuning this noise so we can get the accurate information is most likely impossible on a large scale that would be to finally achieve quantum supremacy. Though take them with a grain of salt, as I also doubt that many gigantic co-operations would invest in a flawed idea.

2. Black Holes. Though I am not very knowledgeable on this specific subject, as far as I know black holes exist forever until their mass is radiated away through trillions of trillions of years. There isn't a boom. Only when they absorb something of large mass, the fast compression of it is theorized to reflect these powerful waves. (If I remember correctly, this is the same wave that they used to prove gravitational information moves as a wave)

3. Hive-minds. Biologically, hive-minds that aren't in very tiny area are basically impossible. End of story. If we look at ants or bees we can see that they would simply not work in other environments. Of course, there is a possibility that it is, there always is a slight chance for everything. In my personal opinion, insects as we know their mind-set on earth simply cannot achieve interstellar travel and they possess the only hive-minds in the animal kingdom. (as far as I know)

Closing words to the debate: Of course, it would be extremely cool to have a star trek in real life. However, logistically and politically they make little sense. It'll happen one day, for sure. Maybe a combined effort to save all life from natural incidents such as the upcoming heat-death? Not to mention that an isolationist approach is always idiotic in our culture and only fools isolate their countries from others. Unity is the best way to go, and I certainly hope we'll achieve it! However, my outlooks are grim. There's I estimate about a 10-15% chance of it working out first try. If it doesn't, then we have 80% to be wiped out. But let's not leave with that!

DOWN WITH XENOPHOBIA, WOOHOO #ALIENLIVESMATTER, #WECANLIVETOGETHER and other hashtags that were relevant last year. I mean, this whole debate was basically racism and logistics, what do you expect if not terrible jokes?
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by MandatoryAccount 3 years ago
Dausume, I'm glad to have had you as my debate partner! You were extremely civil and easy to understand. I hope we'll meet again, and maybe that time I can convince you! Heh, probably not. We're all stubborn people here.
Posted by Dausume 3 years ago
I think that's probably the better scenario, otherwise if intelligent species were to act as isolationist states then it would be much more likely we would be suppressed or elimiinated if we were noticed by another civilization. If we are as of yet unnoticed, which is entirely possible because radio waves which we commonly use may very well be something a more advanced species wouldn't even care about looking at. As the fact that we are capable of looking at quantum particles so soon after the onset of the information age would seem to indicate there are more advanced communication methods that would exist at faster than light transmission (because the limit on faster than light speed travel should only be effective on particles we consider to have mass, and those particles can be potentially used to send transmissions)

If the Universe is composed of mostly independent states, there might be more close collaborations between planets dominated by the same species and more light or temporary collaborations based on ideals between smaller states. I personally think if there is a lot of life out there it's a mix of different situations. There are probably a number of singular isolationist species out there as well which might very well be powerful on their own, which is honestly another direction we could develop in. Just based off the nature of people though, I don't think we'll end up going in that direction.

Even if we are the only life in the universe, we will probably have different branches of Humanity with different ideals emerging. Some will want to act as isolationists at some point, some will want to create new intelligent life forms if they feel life isn't plentiful enough. Ideals will probably branch off in countless directions over time. I'd say over time though, if we make it, we'd end up with the majority of us in or creating a Federation scenario. I could be wrong though, our descendants become extremists in someway, though I'd be dead so...
Posted by Zarium 3 years ago
Is this primarily primed towards the 'Federation' concept?

I really like your ideas here and would love to step in as a devils' advocate to see what you mean - Do you honestly believe the only co-existence we could have with other 'intelligent' species would be in a mutually beneficial Federation of agreed ethics/morals/laws/rules?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.