The Paramters of Justifiable Genocide

[speaker-to-trolls]

OK first of all responding to some of your points which came after one of my posts so may be addressed to me.

Another thing supporting that logic is the presence or rather absence of FTL.
Without FTL, there is virtually no viable way of conducting warfare in space so the whole point is mute. With FTL however things get a lot more complicated.
Any starship capable of extreme accelerations becomes a superweapon in its own right. And even if you have some sort of restrictions placed on the nature of FTL that prevents their use as kinetic impact weapons, you still face the possibility of a FTL starship simply dropping off weapons as primitive as nuclear warheads en mass to any planet in any empire.

And? It's possible for the Russian government to incinerate any city in the world within a few hours, same goes for America and to a lesser extent even Britain and France (note: I don't know the specifics of Britain, France and the rest of the Nuclear Clubs cababilities). The fact that you could be attacked at any point means, if anything, you should avoid conflict.

Furthermore, there is no guarantee that any faction you meat in space will be more advanced than you are. You might well encounter civilizations that are bound to one single planet or solar system just as well as you would those that span whole sections of our galaxy.

How does this support your point? You're basing your whole argument on 'well X, Y and Z MIGHT be true', so why disregard the possibility of larger powers? Larger powers which presumably won't look kindly on rogue species marauding around their bit of the universe.

What you can be sure of however is that those of the second variety did not become such by being nice and moral to other races.

That's an assumption. Maybe they're genocidal monsters, maybe they haven't met any other species or just don't talk to them, maybe they have got as far as they have precisely by forging alliances and fostering profitable relationships with other species. Or maybe it's less simple than any of those.

It is because of these three points that a "Kill them all" option must always be available to you and your ultimate goals must always be either subjugation or destruction of all others.

The kill them all option would have to be on the table IF it was possible you were dealing with a genuine existential threat, but the second part? Why? To remove all possible threats? If that's so shouldn't the goal of every nation on Earth be the destruction or subjugation of all other nations? That's usually turned out to be too expensive, nations of roughly equal power have had to make agreements and sort out their differences diplomatically and weaker nations have had to decide which stronger nations they want to line up with.
Besides even if that was the usual national policy, I don't believe it would make it right.
More to the point, if you are in a galaxy with bigger and badder empires around, your goal should be to be very, very nice and courteous to them in whatever way they see fit, and under no circumstances to give them the impression you are a threat to them. That's pragmatism.

I'm going to deal with this one separately because you've added some extra to it in later posts.

What I want to explain is that these are aliens. And as aliens you do not have any moral obligation to them. They are not human, they are not even from the same planet as you. And as such you simply must newer have any more moral considerations for them than you would expect them to have for you. And when it comes to you or them. If they have something you need, they don't want to share and you know you can take it. Than it is your duty toward your race to go and take it.

Look why is the taxonomy of these hypothetical people so damned important? You say it's to do with not being able to determine their motivations because they're aliens, well we've had cultures on Earth with extremely different values, in fact you listed some of them yourself.

Examples from history include but are not limited to:
- European conquest of south America
- European conquest of north America
- European conquest of Africa
- European conquest of Asia
- German acts against Jews and Slavs in WW2
- Japanese conquests in Asia in WW2
- Cold war hate between communists and capitalists
- American conquests in the middle east (right now)

All of these have in common that one side considers any and all moral, social and other values of the other to be worthless. And most of these have in common that one side takes it upon it self to "correct" these by means of force.
And again, this is humans fighting humans. Now imagine humans fighting giant amoeba.

Now I might be misunderstanding you here, but are you saying that these things were all justified by the cultural differences between the cultures involved? Now I know you said this in response to the question

Edit: besides, come to think, its not just predators. No two humans or human cultures have exactly the same morals, and yet we don't consider those morals worthless when dealing with them.

and you may have understood this to mean 'we' as in 'humans', whereas I interpreted it to mean 'modern, sane humans with a reasonable understanding of right and wrong'. This may of course be just a difference of opinion which can't be breached, suffice to say that I think what was done to the Aztecs and the Inca, regardless of what their cultures did, was wrong, and certainly is nothing to base your own conduct on.

Your whole last post was... To be honest both repulsive and unwise; if you can't understand someone, kill them! Human tribes with no common language had to resort to more basic forms of communication, but doing so would result in far less death, cost and property damage than leaping straight into battle.

[Purple]

I just lost another post and its getting late.
I will be back tomorrow to answer you.

Also, is there any way to stop my pages from expiring while I type? Please PM it to me if there is. Thank you.

[Starglider]

Purple appears to suffer from the same kind of racist sociopathy as Darth Hoth. I would advise a class V mind probe to verify whether he sincerely believes it or is just spouting tough talk in this theroetical case. If he actually believes it, to the extent that he really would steal a starship and crash it into the nearest alien-occupied planet at .99c, appropriate treatment would be be giving him a choice between (a) personality rewrite or (b) being locked in a padded holodeck where he can't hurt anyone until such time as he returns to sanity.

For a rational agent, genocide is subject to the same expected utility calculus as every other action; do the projected gains outweigh the projected costs. I assign utility to things like happiness, self-determination, well-being and diversity. The implementation details (human, alien, AI) don't really matter. The hard part is not so much the assignment of utility, it's assessing the real risks of letting the species live and (for unaltered humans) staying rational under the extreme pressure of making that decision.

Certainly wherever possible I would conquer the hostile civilisation and re-engineer them (e.g. modify their genome-equivalent) to not be an existential threat, changing the minimum amount necessary to accomplish this, rather than trying to wipe them out. In short the way the Culture (from the Iain Banks sci-fi novels) behaves is the morally and technically correct course. Of course one hopes they would not be hostile in the first place.

[Purple]

First, the answer for Formless.

-----------
First, do not call me a moron.
Second, please read my post. Or rather let me explain it to you since you are clearly mentally incapable of understanding it.


There is no base necessity that an alien race will have the same concepts of communication as we do. All humans communicate via sound and the occasional body motion, facial feature or hand sign. All of these, help us develop an understanding of what the other person is trying to say. With us the sound part is the most vital one but that may not be the case with other species. They may rely much more on changing colors, facial expressions, body language or even some form of empathy or telepathy. As such, how would you even begin to translate such a language? And even if you do, there is still the problem of the huge among of time, months if not years that it would take to do so.

During this time, a war may break out at any moment.

They may communicate via telepathy or some other means that does not necessitate radio waves. They may prefer to dock ships and communicate directly or their language might be heavily dependent on their history or culture for context. Imagine for example a language comprised of TvTropes. How would you translate such a language when you have access to nether the translated TvTropes wiki or the works of art that it is based on?


And even once you pass the translation barrier. There is more to communication than just translation, syntax and grammar. There is also the cultural context.

Different cultures can define different behavior as inappropriate. For example if your diplomats found them self courted by their counterparts wife they might refuse out of morality, but the diplomat might be insulted that you refused her. Or their culture might require you to prove your self in ritual combat, or to earn your right to even talk to them, or pick your nose after you have eaten. Or they just might be reclusive and refuse to converse with anyone. Or they might not have a centralized government that you can negotiate with. Or they might understand you, hear you out and than politely tell you to leave since they don't want anything that you have.

There is a whole myriad of circumstances that might hinder diplomacy.

During this long period of time before you establish a peace agreement. And even after you do. Diplomacy is always going to be difficult and dangerous tattering on the brink of war in any moment.

It is simply foolish if not outright suicidal to put morality above self preservation and to give up a "kill them all" solution.

That's an assumption. Maybe they're genocidal monsters, maybe they haven't met any other species or just don't talk to them, maybe they have got as far as they have precisely by forging alliances and fostering profitable relationships with other species. Or maybe it's less simple than any of those.

And maybe they are?

The kill them all option would have to be on the table IF it was possible you were dealing with a genuine existential threat, but the second part? Why? To remove all possible threats? If that's so shouldn't the goal of every nation on Earth be the destruction or subjugation of all other nations? That's usually turned out to be too expensive, nations of roughly equal power have had to make agreements and sort out their differences diplomatically and weaker nations have had to decide which stronger nations they want to line up with.
Besides even if that was the usual national policy, I don't believe it would make it right.

Actually, now and during the cold war that is exactly what the policy was. Mutually Assured Destruction to ensure your own safety through deterrence.

And before nuclear weapons, in the age of colonization this was exactly the kind of attitude that the nations of Europe had. They treated the other human savages as subhuman and thus made it free to enslave and even outright destroy them.

In space, we are far more likely to encounter the kind of attitude that drove the English to colonize half of the world and the Spanish to conquer south America. And when dealing with alien races that is exactly the right kind of attitude to have. If they are stronger, undermine them and create MAD. If they are weaker enslave them before they can do the above.

What is right is self preservation.
More to the point, if you are in a galaxy with bigger and badder empires around, your goal should be to be very, very nice and courteous to them in whatever way they see fit, and under no circumstances to give them the impression you are a threat to them. That's pragmatism.

Again, what I would much prefer is to lay low until I can assure that I am enough a threat to ensure that I can genocide them at will. That is the equivalent of North Korea having nuclear weapons. But those will do you no good if you are too moral to use them.

Look why is the taxonomy of these hypothetical people so damned important? You say it's to do with not being able to determine their motivations because they're aliens, well we've had cultures on Earth with extremely different values, in fact you listed some of them yourself.

And tell me, how did we react to first contact with these cultures?
Europeans reacted by conquering and enslaving them. If the things were the other way around they would have conquered the Europeans. Its how things work in history and we can expect them to work the same way in the future.

Now I might be misunderstanding you here, but are you saying that these things were all justified by the cultural differences between the cultures involved? Now I know you said this in response to the question

Justified, no. Does it happen? Yes.
And it would be foolish to expect that it will not happen upon first contact.

and you may have understood this to mean 'we' as in 'humans', whereas I interpreted it to mean 'modern, sane humans with a reasonable understanding of right and wrong'. This may of course be just a difference of opinion which can't be breached, suffice to say that I think what was done to the Aztecs and the Inca, regardless of what their cultures did, was wrong, and certainly is nothing to base your own conduct on.

Why not? Personaly if I had to chose a rolemodel for the conduct with alien species I would look up the British and Spanish empires of the age of sail. They had the perfect mixture of scientific intrest and violent conquest that is required for the proper conduct with alien species.

Your whole last post was... To be honest both repulsive and unwise; if you can't understand someone, kill them! Human tribes with no common language had to resort to more basic forms of communication, but doing so would result in far less death, cost and property damage than leaping straight into battle.

Again, I newer advocated a instant attack. What I am advocating is a colonial and genocidal approach to politics.
Think of it this way. There is a large Earth like planet that could support billions of your people but it is already inhabited by another race. You have a small empire of 2-3 solar systems. They are limited to that one but have comparable weapons and other technology.
They are not willing to trade with you, and they are mantis-amoebas that live in domed cities with tunnel networks filled with liquid nitrogen.

Now, what are your options.
1. Forget about them until they become a threat since you can do nothing to get the planet
2. Conquer the planet

A modern weak european might chose 1, but one from the age of great empires would always chose 2.

Naturaly if you chose 2, you have many problems. The first is planetary conquest but no less importmant is how do you keep the conquered population in line?
Here on earth we have examples how natives would not subjugate even after being conquered. And these were still felow humans. An alien population would likely not subjugate to you ever.

So we already have 2 points toward genocide.

Now let us examine the battle for the planet.
Let us say they have about 1 bilion troops. You can deliver betwen 2 and 5 bilion. What are your options?

1. Drop the troops and fight a long and hard ground battle with billions of dead on both sides and an uncertain outcome.
If you win, both you and the enemy will face heavy loses with a generally minor death tool with the opposing population who you now have to learn how to control.
If you lose, you can expect them to counterstrike.

2. Use the quick and dirty method.
- Drop Neutron weapons on all major cities and installations
- Drop nuclear weapons on any military complex that might pose a threat or has survived the neutron stage
- Use cruise missiles with nerve gas and other similar weapons to mop up anything to small to warrant stages 1 and 2
- Drop troops to claim the planet, now that it is almost defenseless having lost at least 90% of its population and armed forces
- Bring in the colonists

If you have no desire to take the infrastructure (for example if it was made for a race that is like the one I explained and is to alien to reliably use) you can use a massive EMP strike at the beginning to make things even easier.

With this method:
If you win, you lose minimal forces and the enemy has huge loses.
You can not be defeated lest the enemy manage to chase out your fleet or interrupt you at any stage. If he does, you simply retreat and launch a FTL genocide strike like that I explained before. If he proves resilient to any stage, you just spam munitions until you see results.


In conclusion, I think that there is absolutely no reason why you would think of things like the rights or welfare of an alien people. Why for crying out loud would you care at all?
In fact how even how would you empathize with something that is alien? And even if you could why would you desire to do so?

If one of my soldiers die, I have a family without a father, a wife without a husband and children without anyone to feed them. If a milion of their people die, I have no loss.

Public opinion aside, you have to be pragmatic about it. Naturally I am not advocating instantly exterminating all in your way. But if exterminating something will bring benefit or avoid harm to you, than to not do so is treason to your own race.

[Simon_Jester]

There is no base necessity that an alien race will have the same concepts of communication as we do. All humans communicate via sound and the occasional body motion, facial feature or hand sign. All of these, help us develop an understanding of what the other person is trying to say. With us the sound part is the most vital one but that may not be the case with other species. They may rely much more on changing colors, facial expressions, body language or even some form of empathy or telepathy. As such, how would you even begin to translate such a language? And even if you do, there is still the problem of the huge among of time, months if not years that it would take to do so.

If they're a technological society, then technological communications will have to work much the same way; they may see with their nose, but a radio antenna is a radio antenna.

Moreover, the essential question has to be: why, exactly, do we put ourselves in a position to fight a war with these people such that it endangers us if they decide to attack? You strongly imply that we're in a position to decide whether to destroy aliens or not. If so, then we can equally well decide to simply keep them at a safe distance while we try to figure out how to talk to them.

If they present a material threat to our survival as a species in the event that war breaks out, then a preemptive strike is guaranteed to make them try to destroy us... in which case you're triggering the very war you claim to be trying to prevent. Only if the aliens are helpless to threaten us seriously would your arguments make any sense, and if they aren't a threat then there's no reason to fear them, and therefore no reason to destroy them for fear that they'll destroy us first.

And before nuclear weapons, in the age of colonization this was exactly the kind of attitude that the nations of Europe had. They treated the other human savages as subhuman and thus made it free to enslave and even outright destroy them.

In space, we are far more likely to encounter the kind of attitude that drove the English to colonize half of the world and the Spanish to conquer south America. And when dealing with alien races that is exactly the right kind of attitude to have. If they are stronger, undermine them and create MAD. If they are weaker enslave them before they can do the above.

Why? Doesn't this create a huge range of risks due to the possibility that they will interpret our (obviously hostile) actions as a threat and launch their own preemptive strike? Or that we'll underestimate them and wind up launching a genocide campaign against what was actually a splinter colony of a vast and powerful alien empire that proceeds to wipe us out to the last microbe?

How is your plan safer than making a good faith effort at peaceful coexistence?

Justified, no. Does it happen? Yes.
And it would be foolish to expect that it will not happen upon first contact.

So... let's be that way ourselves because otherwise things will inevitably be that way? Do you just not get how the Prisoner's Dilemma works?

Again, I newer advocated a instant attack. What I am advocating is a colonial and genocidal approach to politics.
Think of it this way. There is a large Earth like planet that could support billions of your people but it is already inhabited by another race. You have a small empire of 2-3 solar systems. They are limited to that one but have comparable weapons and other technology.
They are not willing to trade with you, and they are mantis-amoebas that live in domed cities with tunnel networks filled with liquid nitrogen.

If they are mantis-amoebas who in liquid nitrogen, why did they pick an Earth-like planet to live on instead of settling on something more remote, like Triton? Just so that you could have to decide whether to exterminate them?

Now, what are your options.
1. Forget about them until they become a threat since you can do nothing to get the planet
2. Conquer the planet
A modern weak european might chose 1, but one from the age of great empires would always chose 2.

"Weak European." Two questions:
-Can you demonstrate how modern Europeans are weak, exactly? Are you defining weak to mean "is not an evil bastard?"
-Given that a modern European nation would kick the ass of one of those ancient imperial powers quite handily, either in war or in peace, thanks to advances in technology and social organization... weakness may not mean what you think it means.

In conclusion, I think that there is absolutely no reason why you would think of things like the rights or welfare of an alien people. Why for crying out loud would you care at all?
In fact how even how would you empathize with something that is alien? And even if you could why would you desire to do so?

Because I am not a sociopath, and because I am not convinced that "war is inevitable therefore we must start a war!" is a sane argument.

[Purple]

If they're a technological society, then technological communications will have to work much the same way; they may see with their nose, but a radio antenna is a radio antenna.

And that after you even quoted the part where I explained the problems of such reasoning.
If you and your friend have radios, he only knows Japanese and you only know English. And neither of you knows anything about the others language (presumably alien first contact) what good are the radios for you when nether can decipher the other ones signals?

Moreover, the essential question has to be: why, exactly, do we put ourselves in a position to fight a war with these people such that it endangers us if they decide to attack? You strongly imply that we're in a position to decide whether to destroy aliens or not. If so, then we can equally well decide to simply keep them at a safe distance while we try to figure out how to talk to them.

By deciding on the later, you risk them one day becoming a threat. Prevention is the key.

If they present a material threat to our survival as a species in the event that war breaks out, then a preemptive strike is guaranteed to make them try to destroy us... in which case you're triggering the very war you claim to be trying to prevent. Only if the aliens are helpless to threaten us seriously would your arguments make any sense, and if they aren't a threat then there's no reason to fear them, and therefore no reason to destroy them for fear that they'll destroy us first.

Why? Doesn't this create a huge range of risks due to the possibility that they will interpret our (obviously hostile) actions as a threat and launch their own preemptive strike? Or that we'll underestimate them and wind up launching a genocide campaign against what was actually a splinter colony of a vast and powerful alien empire that proceeds to wipe us out to the last microbe?

How is your plan safer than making a good faith effort at peaceful coexistence?

I somehow feel you did not read at least half of my last post... That or I was not clear again. I am pretty sure I addressed this several times. I can get the quotes if you like.

So... let's be that way ourselves because otherwise things will inevitably be that way? Do you just not get how the Prisoner's Dilemma works?

Having read about it I can say that now I do. And I found that it is not exactly what I am trying to explain although it provides exactly the kind of insight I am aiming at.
Nations and species are like beasts. A stronger beast eats the lesser one and the cycle goes on untill it is in turn eaten by a stronger one.

Here on earth we are the dominant species. We are under no real threat from the lions and tigers and bears. And our medicine allows us to be relatively safe from pathogens. But in space, we will no longer be in that position. And sooner or later its going to come to either us or them. I do not want to be caught of guard when it comes to that.

If they are mantis-amoebas who in liquid nitrogen, why did they pick an Earth-like planet to live on instead of settling on something more remote, like Triton? Just so that you could have to decide whether to exterminate them?

So, you chose to complain about the conditions of the experiment rather than provide an answer. Do you do that in your school exams as well?

-Can you demonstrate how modern Europeans are weak, exactly? Are you defining weak to mean "is not an evil bastard?"

I devine "weak" as not willing to throw out established moral standards if that is what is required for the ultimate wellfare of his species. (and yes, I am hocked on Niche lately)

-Given that a modern European nation would kick the ass of one of those ancient imperial powers quite handily, either in war or in peace, thanks to advances in technology and social organization... weakness may not mean what you think it means.

Now you are begeaning to understand. Might makes right.

Because I am not a sociopath, and because I am not convinced that "war is inevitable therefore we must start a war!" is a sane argument.

It is natural to have empathy for other members of your species. Everything above and beyond that is strange already.
And if you can't agree with me, just refer to the last phrase of this post.

[Simon_Jester]

And that after you even quoted the part where I explained the problems of such reasoning.
If you and your friend have radios, he only knows Japanese and you only know English. And neither of you knows anything about the others language (presumably alien first contact) what good are the radios for you when nether can decipher the other ones signals?

This is why you start with really simple stuff, like numbers. Seriously, other people have given the matter a lot of thought already, because it's not exactly a subtle or difficult problem to think of. It may not be something that can be solved in a few months, or even a few years, but acting like it's a barrier so tremendous that it's easier to murder aliens than to learn their language... that's taking it a bit far, I think.

By deciding on the later, you risk them one day becoming a threat. Prevention is the key.

Do you apply this kind of thought to your own species? If not, why not?

I somehow feel you did not read at least half of my last post... That or I was not clear again. I am pretty sure I addressed this several times. I can get the quotes if you like.

By all means.

See, you repeatedly say "It's too dangerous to let them live." You do not explain how you are so sure that trying to kill them is less dangerous than letting them live.

So... let's be that way ourselves because otherwise things will inevitably be that way? Do you just not get how the Prisoner's Dilemma works?

Having read about it I can say that now I do. And I found that it is not exactly what I am trying to explain although it provides exactly the kind of insight I am aiming at.
Nations and species are like beasts. A stronger beast eats the lesser one and the cycle goes on untill it is in turn eaten by a stronger one.

Can you prove this thesis, not just by citing examples that you think support your claims, but by explaining cases where what you seem to predict doesn't happen?

For example, Finland is not an especially strong nation, and it has a much stronger neighbor; has it been "eaten?" Canada is not an especially strong nation, and it has a much stronger neighbor; has it been "eaten?"

You assert, as an axiom, that "the universe is hard, the strong trample the weak." Only from that point does it follow "therefore let us trample the weak because we do not want to be weak and trampled." But you ruled peaceful coexistence out before you even started talking, and that's the bit that I'd like to see you come up with a better explanation for. Rather than just repeating "the strong trample the weak, that's the way it always is and always will be."

Prove it.

If they are mantis-amoebas who in liquid nitrogen, why did they pick an Earth-like planet to live on instead of settling on something more remote, like Triton? Just so that you could have to decide whether to exterminate them?

So, you chose to complain about the conditions of the experiment rather than provide an answer. Do you do that in your school exams as well?

If the exam question is based on a false premise that's designed to lead me into a false answer, yes, I will. Though to tell the truth I don't have many exams these days, and most of them are designed by honest people who want to test, not to ask loaded questions in hopes of getting the right parroted answer.

In this case, you constructed a bullshit premise: unearthly aliens living on an earthly world, a planet as inhospitable to them as Venus is to us. That leads to a bullshit conclusion: exterminate the unearthly aliens to make the earthly world available for earthly life. The question is, what would you propose to do if the unearthly aliens lived on an unearthly world? One that actually resembled the planet they evolved on? One that was hardly desirable for humans?

Would you still favor killing them all then, too?

-Can you demonstrate how modern Europeans are weak, exactly? Are you defining weak to mean "is not an evil bastard?"

I devine "weak" as not willing to throw out established moral standards if that is what is required for the ultimate wellfare of his species. (and yes, I am hocked on Niche lately)

I'd be more impressed if you could spell Nietzche, but anyway.

Can you demonstrate that this is in fact a source of strength and not of weakness? Remember that the old colonial empires weren't throwing out established moral standards; they were following what they thought were established moral standards. By, for example, killing people for refusing to become Christians... which Nietzche would probably have despised.

Also remember that human beings are social animals. We evolved to operate in groups. Our sense of morality evolved to make operating in groups possible. If we were solitary predators like polar bears or praying mantises, maybe we wouldn't worry about that sort of thing. But we aren't, and we do... and without that understanding of ideas like "fair," we wouldn't be able to function in groups. Technological civilization could not function, and we'd be stuck in a Hobbesean war of all against all.

So maybe being following moral principles in dealings with others is a strength, not a weakness...

-Given that a modern European nation would kick the ass of one of those ancient imperial powers quite handily, either in war or in peace, thanks to advances in technology and social organization... weakness may not mean what you think it means.

Now you are begeaning to understand. Might makes right.

I submit that it may be the other way around. Right conduct makes well-organized government and economic growth possible... which means that right makes might, not the other way around. This is why squabbling murderous hellholes generally don't fight very well in the modern era. They're so busy being all "amoral competition puts the strongest in charge!"* that they couldn't govern their way out of a paper bag.

*whether they think of it that way or not.

Because I am not a sociopath, and because I am not convinced that "war is inevitable therefore we must start a war!" is a sane argument.

It is natural to have empathy for other members of your species. Everything above and beyond that is strange already.

Why? How do you know that it's strange?

And if you can't agree with me, just refer to the last phrase of this post.

Oh, I'm quite prepared to meet violence with violence. I just don't think it's a smart call to be a murderous savage on the assumption that everyone else will be.

[Starglider]

Do you apply this kind of thought to your own species? If not, why not?

Purple's position has numerous flaws, but this is the most serious. There is no particular reason to define 'my species' as the ingroup/outgroup distinction. You might as well say 'my family', 'my city', 'my country', 'white people', 'brown people', 'earth life forms', 'human derived minds', 'organic creatures', 'carbon-based creatures', they're all quite arbitrary. Reference classes in ethical systems should be based on ability to comprehend and take part in particular kinds of behavior, and that makes 'all sapient beings' the only sensible group to apply ethics to (the possibility of additional ethical classes for superintelligences is a separate issue).

Furthermore the probability of humanity being the first species to evolve and the most technologically advanced one in our light cone is very small (excepting some far-out Singularity scenarios I won't go into), so if everyone took Purple's position, humanity would almost certainly be doomed to extinction by advanced aliens. Of course since 'might makes right' he must necessarily see this as only right and proper.

[Formless]

First, do not call me a moron.

Then don't act like one.

Moron.

There is no base necessity that an alien race will have the same concepts of communication as we do.

If they don't understand communication by radio, they cannot function as an interstellar civilization. What is so hard about that to understand?

They may communicate via telepathy or some other means that does not necessitate radio waves.

TELEPATHY DOES NOT EXIST, YOU FUCKING RETARD. If it did exist, it would most likely work on... radio. Or at least the electromagnetic spectrum, which is just as easy to translate for the purposes of interspecies communication.

They may prefer to dock ships and communicate directly or their language might be heavily dependent on their history or culture for context.

Do you realize just how horribly inefficient this communication setup would be? There is little need to worry about bothering them or them bothering us if this is the case because their ability to expand in any decent ammount of time will be significantly hampered by the sheer waste of fuel. Hell, it would even give us something to trade: better communications in exchange for... whatever they want to give us. Preferrably peace.

Imagine for example a language comprised of TvTropes. How would you translate such a language when you have access to nether the translated TvTropes wiki or the works of art that it is based on?

And even once you pass the translation barrier. There is more to communication than just translation, syntax and grammar. There is also the cultural context.

What, they can't do math? They've never heard of cryptography? Have you ever actually thought about this beyond "universal translator or bust"? This is an issue with human languages, you fucking moron. Why, then, are we able to communicate across cultures at all?

Here's a hint: when it comes to serious proposals of how we would communicate with alien species, the first rule of thumb is to make things as easy for them as possible-- sort of the opposite of cryptography. All it takes to say "we just want to talk" is a series of prime numbers encoded in a radio signal, and the rest is just math. This isn't just speculative: ever heard of a radioglyph? I doubt you have.

Different cultures can define different behavior as inappropriate. For example if your diplomats found them self courted by their counterparts wife they might refuse out of morality, but the diplomat might be insulted that you refused her. Or their culture might require you to prove your self in ritual combat, or to earn your right to even talk to them, or pick your nose after you have eaten. Or they just might be reclusive and refuse to converse with anyone. Or they might not have a centralized government that you can negotiate with. Or they might understand you, hear you out and than politely tell you to leave since they don't want anything that you have.

There is a whole myriad of circumstances that might hinder diplomacy.

Again, this is a problem with negotiating between human cultures. Yet somehow we manage, and we DO NOT throw our own morals out the window just because we're dealing with other nations.

During this long period of time before you establish a peace agreement. And even after you do. Diplomacy is always going to be difficult and dangerous tattering on the brink of war in any moment.

It is simply foolish if not outright suicidal to put morality above self preservation and to give up a "kill them all" solution.

Diplomacy is difficult =! diplomacy is useless, idiot.

And you still don't get why everyone thinks you are morally bankrupt.

[Purple]

This is why you start with really simple stuff, like numbers. Seriously, other people have given the matter a lot of thought already, because it's not exactly a subtle or difficult problem to think of. It may not be something that can be solved in a few months, or even a few years, but acting like it's a barrier so tremendous that it's easier to murder aliens than to learn their language... that's taking it a bit far, I think.

I explained that part several posts back.
I newer said that the barrier is so tremendous that it's easier to murder aliens than to learn their language. What I did say is that the presence of the barrier poses a danger that might eventually lead to conflict. And that if that happens, than you should kill them all.

Do you apply this kind of thought to your own species? If not, why not?

Humanity mostly did apply this for a while. But in modern times, it has taken a different turn.
The modern world has become increasingly globalized to the point that each country needs all the others either to provide labor or serve as markets or other things.

In space, something like that is not likely to happen because of the sheer distances and costs involved with interstellar trade and because of the physical barriers. There list of things that you have and they need will be short indeed unless you actively devote time to expanding it.

That and because you have to draw the line somewhere. And that somewhere is actually not at the level of the species. But I will get to that later.

By all means.

See, you repeatedly say "It's too dangerous to let them live." You do not explain how you are so sure that trying to kill them is less dangerous than letting them live.

Let me try to explain it.

Can you prove this thesis, not just by citing examples that you think support your claims, but by explaining cases where what you seem to predict doesn't happen?

For example, Finland is not an especially strong nation, and it has a much stronger neighbor; has it been "eaten?" Canada is not an especially strong nation, and it has a much stronger neighbor; has it been "eaten?"

Now I am not 100% certain about this but I do believe that they had some conection to a small and insignificant historical force called the Vikings. Regardless however. It has not been eaten during history because of several factors. One of them is that it is really not that attractive of a territory as opposed to the gold and gems riddled africa or the wast territories of central europe. Another is that it was newer weak to begin with. The Finns are strong, but not agresive.

On the other hand, can you tell me what gain they have had from it? England controled half of the earth (figuratively), France and Spain held not that much less. They had years upon years of prosperity fueled by these conquests. And during this time, what did the finns have?

You assert, as an axiom, that "the universe is hard, the strong trample the weak." Only from that point does it follow "therefore let us trample the weak because we do not want to be weak and trampled." But you ruled peaceful coexistence out before you even started talking, and that's the bit that I'd like to see you come up with a better explanation for. Rather than just repeating "the strong trample the weak, that's the way it always is and always will be."

I do not rule out peaceful coexistence. I just rule out long term peaceful coexistence.
Sooner or later there is going to be a war, and once that war comes you have to be willing to make sure you win. By any means necessary. And genocide is just one of the completely legitimate tools of that war.

If the exam question is based on a false premise that's designed to lead me into a false answer, yes, I will. Though to tell the truth I don't have many exams these days, and most of them are designed by honest people who want to test, not to ask loaded questions in hopes of getting the right parroted answer.

What I wanted to say, but you failed to understand is that the premise is unimportant.
It does not mater if they are giant amoebas, giant mantises or elephant people or for a lack of better word what ever.

I made that example up just because I wanted to maximize the pure differentness of the creatures and make them as inhuman as possible because this is not Star Trek and there will be no humans with only one [insert defining feature] thing different than us.

Yet you insist that I made the whole thing up so that I could "load" the question somehow.
All I wanted to do is define that "They are not human" and I honestly like that whole amoeba thing. I do believe it is one of my beter inventions.

But for the sake of achieving an argument. Lets say that they are rubber forehead Klingon's with 3 arms and 4 eyes and are otherwise identical to humans in terms of living conditions.

Would you still favor killing them all then, too?

If I had nothing to gain from taking the planet, than I would not. But if the planet contained some mineral or something that I can use, I would instead try to enslave them by threatening genocide.

I'd be more impressed if you could spell Nietzche, but anyway.

Please direct any and all complaints about my spelling to: http://www.iespell.com/

Can you demonstrate that this is in fact a source of strength and not of weakness? Remember that the old colonial empires weren't throwing out established moral standards; they were following what they thought were established moral standards. By, for example, killing people for refusing to become Christians... which Nietzche would probably have despised.

My point is that todays moral standards, unlike those of the colonial era are, while well suited for the peaceful and globalized world we live in hardly useful in the radically different conditions that await us in space. For one, globalization would be nearly impossible due to the costs of interstellar trade and cultural differences.

Your morality works perfectly well in a world where everyone feels that way. But it takes only one person like me to bring that down fast.

The morality they had allowed them to conquer huge chunks of the world. Britain is still gaining profit from the Commonwealth even thou its empire has long since fallen. Rome controlled almost entire Europe. Its a simple equation: Conquest = more wealth + more resources = more conquest -> repeat.

The moment you are unable to continue conquering for one reason or another you begin to decline. The entire history of our world was shaped by empires rising and falling when someone new and stronger rose to destroy them. What you propose is to go into the galaxy with wishes of peace preferably without any weapons or god forbid nuclear bombs and pray that everyone is a pacifist. What I propose is to look out for your own first and for everything else second. And to make sure that you have no illusions about what is more important, their existence or your wealth.

Also remember that human beings are social animals. We evolved to operate in groups. Our sense of morality evolved to make operating in groups possible. If we were solitary predators like polar bears or praying mantises, maybe we wouldn't worry about that sort of thing. But we aren't, and we do... and without that understanding of ideas like "fair," we wouldn't be able to function in groups. Technological civilization could not function, and we'd be stuck in a Hobbesean war of all against all.

Addressed at the bottom of the post.

I submit that it may be the other way around. Right conduct makes well-organized government and economic growth possible... which means that right makes might, not the other way around. This is why squabbling murderous hellholes generally don't fight very well in the modern era. They're so busy being all "amoral competition puts the strongest in charge!"* that they couldn't govern their way out of a paper bag.

So by your analogy the british empire with its enslavement and rampant capitalist expansion could have not possibly beaten the friendly and nature loving natives? And when they somehow did, they could newer reap any benefit?

Modern European wealth is not built upon the hard work of Europeans but the centuries of exploited of the rest of the world. Europe can enjoy its wealth today because and not despite they acted like barbarians and conquered all in their sight.

Why? How do you know that it's strange?

That part was purely my personal opinion.

And if you can't agree with me, just refer to the last phrase of this post.

Oh, I'm quite prepared to meet violence with violence. I just don't think it's a smart call to be a murderous savage on the assumption that everyone else will be.[/quote]
Now you are taking my posts into extremes again. Must I repeat my self? No, instead let me quote:

Naturally I am not advocating instantly exterminating all in your way. But if exterminating something will bring benefit or avoid harm to you, than to not do so is treason to your own race.

Furthermore the probability of humanity being the first species to evolve and the most technologically advanced one in our light cone is very small (excepting some far-out Singularity scenarios I won't go into), so if everyone took Purple's position, humanity would almost certainly be doomed to extinction by advanced aliens. Of course since 'might makes right' he must necessarily see this as only right and proper.

Well yes, I really don't have any high expectations for the survival of the human race in FTL SF conditions. Thank Einstein (did I spell it right) for there being no FTL period.

Purple's position has numerous flaws, but this is the most serious. There is no particular reason to define 'my species' as the ingroup/outgroup distinction. You might as well say 'my family', 'my city', 'my country', 'white people', 'brown people', 'earth life forms', 'human derived minds', 'organic creatures', 'carbon-based creatures', they're all quite arbitrary.

That is actualy the best point anyone presented here so far. And that is actualy hiting to the core of what I have been trying to say. I just could newer phrase it like that. Thank you.

Let me try to explain where I think the line should be drawn.
The whole thing depends on who's standpoint you are looking from. However, in case of a space faring nation, the only important standpoint is that of it's leaders. And for them, the place to draw the line should be idiotically clear. The line should be a circle, inside it all of the persons under your control, outside it the rest of the galaxy.
And yes, I am fully aware of the implications that brings. But the most important thing to any nation should be the welfare of its own people, and nothing should be more important than that, not even the lives of some other.

Reference classes in ethical systems should be based on ability to comprehend and take part in particular kinds of behavior, and that makes 'all sapient beings' the only sensible group to apply ethics to (the possibility of additional ethical classes for superintelligences is a separate issue).

That is a beautiful position for a humanist philosopher in a pacifist universe.

However I newer hid the fact that my point hinges on everyone or at least the majority of important civilizations thinking the same way. It also hinges on interstellar communication and diplomacy being difficult.

If that is (by some magic or the other) not the case and if there is no incident in the first few centuries after first contact with another species and if they are neither significantly stronger or weaker than us and if they have reached the same level of friendliness that we have come to expect of our fellow men (at least in western Europe) than my point will truly be null and void. However, it is my personal opinion that this is unlikely to be the case.



As for you Mr. Formless, I do not know how your parents have raised you, or what barbarian and primitive culture you come from. I also do not know or care to know of your age or social standing. I do not know or care to know what kind of behavior is acceptable in your social conditions.
But where I am from we do not take kindly to people throwing insults. So unless you can post politely and refrain from acting like a complete pig I shall not answer any of your posts.

I have however read every last stomach churning word of it and you can expect a reply if and when you chose to rephrase your post in a polite and orderly manner. Until than, I would ask you to refrain from addressing me.

[speaker-to-trolls]

Don't have time for a full rebuttal or adressing of all your relevant points, so I'd just point out a problem in your general attitude.

As for you Mr. Formless, I do not know how your parents have raised you, or what barbarian and primitive culture you come from. I also do not know or care to know of your age or social standing. I do not know or care to know what kind of behavior is acceptable in your social conditions.
But where I am from we do not take kindly to people throwing insults. So unless you can post politely and refrain from acting like a complete pig I shall not answer any of your posts.

I have however read every last stomach churning word of it and you can expect a reply if and when you chose to rephrase your post in a polite and orderly manner. Until than, I would ask you to refrain from addressing me.

Read the damn board rules, or, to be honest, just skim through any reasonably long thread on this forum, this kind of attitude does not get you anywhere here. Simon Jester and myself haven't used direct insults because it's not our style, Formless has a different style, but that doesn't give you permission to ignore him.
Why do so many newbies fail to understand this, figuring out this boards culture and accepted norms is not fucking difficult!

And think about it, your posts are full of implicit assertions that we're, I don't know, naieve and weak and unmanly or whatever (don't try to deny it, you can't when you describe the opposing position as one held by 'weak Europeans' as opposed to the 'Great Empires') and ours are all implicitly calling you an amoral sociopath. In a way that's honestly boringly familiar on the internet you seem ok with that, but most consider it a bad thing.
So basically what's the problem if he calls you an idiot on top of that?

[Formless]

As for you Mr. Formless, I do not know how your parents have raised you, or what barbarian and primitive culture you come from. I also do not know or care to know of your age or social standing. I do not know or care to know what kind of behavior is acceptable in your social conditions.
But where I am from we do not take kindly to people throwing insults. So unless you can post politely and refrain from acting like a complete pig I shall not answer any of your posts.

I have however read every last stomach churning word of it and you can expect a reply if and when you chose to rephrase your post in a polite and orderly manner. Until than, I would ask you to refrain from addressing me.

Fuck off, you self righteous cunt. Ignoring someone's points because they are being rude is against the rule here. Hell, I was being polite to start with, it was only after you proved to be an utterly retarded sociopath that I started burning you. I also like it that when I insult you its grounds for you to ignore me in your mind, but calling me a barbarian? A-Okay! Lurk more, asshole.

[Simon_Jester]

I explained that part several posts back.
I newer said that the barrier is so tremendous that it's easier to murder aliens than to learn their language. What I did say is that the presence of the barrier poses a danger that might eventually lead to conflict. And that if that happens, than you should kill them all.

Because, naturally, they won't stop trying to attack you after you demonstrate the ability to blast the crap out of them. Right.

So no, you did not explain that part several posts back, not to any real degree of clarity. You have yet to clearly explain how your view of the situation is more sophisticated than "kill anything you can imagine ever making you any trouble because the alternative is to be weak!"

Do you apply this kind of thought to your own species? If not, why not?

Humanity mostly did apply this for a while. But in modern times, it has taken a different turn...

I did not ask if others apply this kind of thought to our own species. I asked if you do. Because you are the one proposing genocide.

That and because you have to draw the line somewhere. And that somewhere is actually not at the level of the species. But I will get to that later.

Why?

By all means.
See, you repeatedly say "It's too dangerous to let them live." You do not explain how you are so sure that trying to kill them is less dangerous than letting them live.

Let me try to explain it.

I'm waiting.

Now I am not 100% certain about this but I do believe that they had some conection to a small and insignificant historical force called the Vikings. Regardless however. It has not been eaten during history because of several factors. One of them is that it is really not that attractive of a territory as opposed to the gold and gems riddled africa or the wast territories of central europe. Another is that it was newer weak to begin with. The Finns are strong, but not agresive.

How much do you know about the history of Finland? Never mind, no need to ask. Your association of the Finland with the Vikings shows... well, considerable historical illiteracy with respect to Europe, put it that way. Also, you neglect the point that Finland has in fact been a province of various outside empires for much of its history... only to gain its independence recently in the face of the rise of one of the most aggressive regimes ever to exist on its border.

What's even more interesting is that regardless of whether they were independent at a given time or not they were in no sense "swallowed" or made into a copy of their conquerors. Which is kind of my point: if you take your blinkers off and really look at history, it does not take long to come to the conclusion that it isn't all about civilizations marching across the globe like monsters devouring their weaker fellows. That happens, but it isn't the only thing going on.

On the other hand, can you tell me what gain they have had from it? England controled half of the earth (figuratively), France and Spain held not that much less. They had years upon years of prosperity fueled by these conquests. And during this time, what did the finns have?

As much, per capita, as the average Englishman or Frenchman of the time: their homes, their 16th-19th century level livelihoods... the works.

A peasant on a farm doesn't gain much from being part of a big empire. Why should I care? And why should I assume that "the lesson of history" is that only empires are worth being? And that the only way to be an empire is to be a ruthless crusher of all that looks at me cross-eyed, as you imply?

I do not rule out peaceful coexistence. I just rule out long term peaceful coexistence.
Sooner or later there is going to be a war, and once that war comes you have to be willing to make sure you win. By any means necessary. And genocide is just one of the completely legitimate tools of that war.

I ask again: Do you apply this principle to your own species?

What I wanted to say, but you failed to understand is that the premise is unimportant.
It does not mater if they are giant amoebas, giant mantises or elephant people or for a lack of better word what ever.

The problem is that without a suitably unearthly population of aliens... communication becomes far more likely. Creatures that evolved in an environment like ours will have to adapt to conditions like the ones we adapted to, which makes it much, much less plausible that we will be unable to talk to them.

If I had nothing to gain from taking the planet, than I would not. But if the planet contained some mineral or something that I can use, I would instead try to enslave them by threatening genocide.

Do you apply this reasoning to your own species?

I'd be more impressed if you could spell Nietzche, but anyway.

Please direct any and all complaints about my spelling to: http://www.iespell.com/

See, the problem with relying on that is that it won't tell you if you're using the right word. So you end up with:

Merry hat a little lam. Ids fleas were wide as no.

Again, I'd be more impressed by your claim to admire Nietzche if you could spell his name. If you'd actually read any of his work, I'd think you'd at least be able to tell that there are more than five letters in "Nietzche" just from recognizing the name.

I don't think you're a Nietzchean at all. I think you just latched onto his name because he sounds like a dignified excuse to jerk off to the idea of committing mass destruction and ignoring morality. He's not... but you wouldn't know that, now would you?

Your morality works perfectly well in a world where everyone feels that way. But it takes only one person like me to bring that down fast.

Oh, I don't know. Rabid dogs aren't uncommon, nor are sociopaths. Civilization deals with them all the time. So I'd say it takes way more than one person like you to bring the system down fast.

The morality they had allowed them to conquer huge chunks of the world. Britain is still gaining profit from the Commonwealth even thou its empire has long since fallen. Rome controlled almost entire Europe. Its a simple equation: Conquest = more wealth + more resources = more conquest -> repeat.

Doesn't work in a modern context. You wind up spending more wealth to conquer your target than you gain from looting it.

This isn't the Iron Age, and you can't make a profit on a war just by hauling back a pile of gold from the palace of your enemy.

What you propose is to go into the galaxy with wishes of peace preferably without any weapons or god forbid nuclear bombs and pray that everyone is a pacifist.

How do you know what I propose?

For that matter, let me quiz you: what do I propose?

I submit that it may be the other way around. Right conduct makes well-organized government and economic growth possible... which means that right makes might, not the other way around. This is why squabbling murderous hellholes generally don't fight very well in the modern era. They're so busy being all "amoral competition puts the strongest in charge!"* that they couldn't govern their way out of a paper bag.

So by your analogy the british empire with its enslavement and rampant capitalist expansion could have not possibly beaten the friendly and nature loving natives? And when they somehow did, they could newer reap any benefit?

You don't get it. Again.

First of all, the natives of that era weren't hippies any more than the people who live in those same areas today are. They were just as violent and ferocious as the people who conquered them. The difference is that they were, by and large, not as well organized. Guess what? Organization requires the ability to recognize that there are times when it isn't smart to try and kill someone for being inconvenient. That cooperating with a neighbor to defeat an invader is likely to be smarter in the long run than allying with the invader against your neighbor. That maybe you need to reform your economic structure so that you can compete with a foreign economy that can produce better goods for less cost than your domestic economy.

With very few exceptions, the more organized a society was, the better it performed at repelling European colonialism. This was not a coincidence.

Naturally I am not advocating instantly exterminating all in your way. But if exterminating something will bring benefit or avoid harm to you, than to not do so is treason to your own race.

Do you apply this reasoning to your own species?
_____________________

Let me try to explain where I think the line should be drawn.
The whole thing depends on who's standpoint you are looking from. However, in case of a space faring nation, the only important standpoint is that of it's leaders. And for them, the place to draw the line should be idiotically clear. The line should be a circle, inside it all of the persons under your control, outside it the rest of the galaxy.
And yes, I am fully aware of the implications that brings. But the most important thing to any nation should be the welfare of its own people, and nothing should be more important than that, not even the lives of some other.

So you do apply this reasoning to your own species.

Well then. See, that means that you wind up implicitly supporting pretty much every filthy murderous, contemptible crime in the history of this poor shuddering world, crimes that have caused far more loss to the cause of civilization than they could ever make up for... in which case your argument shoots itself neatly in the head and falls into the sea, saving us even the trouble of having to dispose of the body.

As for you Mr. Formless, I do not know how your parents have raised you, or what barbarian and primitive culture you come from. I also do not know or care to know of your age or social standing. I do not know or care to know what kind of behavior is acceptable in your social conditions.
But where I am from we do not take kindly to people throwing insults. So unless you can post politely and refrain from acting like a complete pig I shall not answer any of your posts.

...Ooh, this is amusing.

See, there's actually a forum rule here against refusing to reply to people because you don't care for their tone. Now, Formless isn't the greatest debater on the site, but I think some of his points merit attention. Attention you aren't paying; I wonder why.

[Formless]

Now, Formless isn't the greatest debater on the site, but I think some of his points merit attention.

(Not that I ever claimed to be the greatest, but I do try. )

[Lagmonster]

Okay, *three* people have now advised Purple on the rules. One was more than enough.

They are however, entirely correct: On this board, we allow people to dress their arguments up with insults. We expect you to be able to ignore the insults and focus on the argument. If you wish to concede the argument, do so. If you wish to continue the argument, we expect you to be thicker-skinned about it. If you don't like those terms, leave.

[Purple]

They are however, entirely correct: On this board, we allow people to dress their arguments up with insults. We expect you to be able to ignore the insults and focus on the argument. If you wish to concede the argument, do so. If you wish to continue the argument, we expect you to be thicker-skinned about it. If you don't like those terms, leave.

I have read those rules before signing up but I had no idea that they extended so far.
I am certanly no saint, and I do not request from anyone that they be one. But in his post, there was not a single sentence that did not start with a direct insult. His post was not a post dressed up with insults, it was a bunch of insults dressed up with a bit of post.

That is where I draw the limit really.
I was perfectly willing to answer any of his claims as soon as he removed the insults. However, since it seems that this board has absolutely no limits on such behavior and it is I who must either concede or suffer from more of it I am left with no choice but to concede.

Farewell.

[Lagmonster]

And there you have it. Advocating wholesale slaughter is okay, so long as you are polite about it. Lest one think us uncivilized in our barbarism.

I think that this caps this discussion nicely.

[PeZook]

His post was not a post dressed up with insults, it was a bunch of insults dressed up with a bit of post.

What the hell? Maybe SDN corrupted me to the bone, but since when do three insults equal "a bunch of insults dressed up with a bit of post"?

He really considers that to be "taking it too far"?

Now I know why Purple can't be bothered to figure out a way to communicate with aliens ; He'd become offended and storm off in a huff at the slightest confrontation or misunderstanding if he ever tried.

[Simon_Jester]

And then come back with nukes and try to destroy us all for insulting him...

[Dalton]

Grow a Thick Skin. People are allowed to insult each other and use profanity on these forums. Do not run to a moderator or dismiss someone's argument just because he's insulting or rude. The best way to respond to a rude person is to show him up by producing a better argument than he can.

If You Hate The Board, Leave. Self-explanatory. There is no good reason why someone who thinks the board is a terrible place should stay and post about how much he hates it. If you think it's that bad, just leave instead of whining about it. That also goes for whining about "prevailing attitudes", "board culture", etc. If you think the majority of us are wrong about some topical issue, make some good arguments to show why we're wrong. Don't just whine that few of us agree with you.

Whine, whine, whine.

[Coyote]

Rarely can one look at the motivations behind a genocide, and find a wholesome reason. Rarely would a genocide be motivated by, say, self-defense, since it can be assumed that at some point, defending group A will have killed off 51% of threatening group B, making group B no longer a credible threat to group A, and thus make the genocide in the name of self-defense unjustifiable.

Genocides in history are for pretty unwholesome reasons-- "we want their land"; "they are inferior"; etc. In the case of the Na'vi, people would justify obliterating the Na'vi because the Na'vi refused to lay down and let their land be raped by an evil, greedy corporation. An odd thought process to find on SDN, perhaps, but sometimes you just want to be the Cowboys instead of the Indians.

[speaker-to-trolls]

Rarely can one look at the motivations behind a genocide, and find a wholesome reason. Rarely would a genocide be motivated by, say, self-defense, since it can be assumed that at some point, defending group A will have killed off 51% of threatening group B, making group B no longer a credible threat to group A, and thus make the genocide in the name of self-defense unjustifiable.

Historically that's probably true, I'd argue that if both sides have access to weapons of mass destruction this might change the equation, since a conflict would result in rapid destruction of at least the majority of the enemies population.
The equation would also change in a contrived situation where ones enemy is much stronger than oneself but one somehow has a weapon to destroy them all at a stroke without the option of discriminating enough to make the attack limited, such as the proposed viral attack on the Borg in the Star Trek episode Hugh. But that's contrived and narrow as a situation and maybe not worth mentioning.

Genocides in history are for pretty unwholesome reasons-- "we want their land"; "they are inferior"; etc. In the case of the Na'vi, people would justify obliterating the Na'vi because the Na'vi refused to lay down and let their land be raped by an evil, greedy corporation. An odd thought process to find on SDN, perhaps, but sometimes you just want to be the Cowboys instead of the Indians.

Not even cowboys, they want to be the douchebag landowners in black hats and their army of goons.
What, though, if it isn't a question of 'we want', but 'we need' their land. The land can't support both or the indigenous people won't share and there is either nowhere to go or driving them out would be as good as death. It may be better to die nobly rather than do such a thing for resources, but on the other hand I can see how it could very well seem right to do it.
For instance: Suppose the 'lol I WANTS TO NUKEZ PANDORA' types are right and lack of unobtainium will cause civil war on Earth. Is it right to wipe out the Na'Vi (who number, it's reasonable to assume, less than 100,000,000) if half a billion humans could die in that civil war?

[Simon_Jester]

A point:

To me, wiping out all of anything is more extreme than destroying some part of something else. If the RDA bombed Pandora into glass and killed all the Na'vi, then not only would they be killing all living Na'vi, but all potential future Na'vi. All the opportunities Na'vi society has, all the things it could develop into, all the ideas and concepts it could teach the larger universe, are gone.

Whereas a civil war on Earth, even one that causes mass casualties, does not, as long as people are left alive and civilization continues to exist.

I think that needs to be factored into utilitarian calculations about things like this, but I'm afraid I'm not sure how to do it.

[Coyote]

The equation would also change in a contrived situation where ones enemy is much stronger than oneself but one somehow has a weapon to destroy them all at a stroke without the option of discriminating enough to make the attack limited, such as the proposed viral attack on the Borg in the Star Trek episode Hugh. But that's contrived and narrow as a situation and maybe not worth mentioning.

The concept is worth a thought, though, perhaps, even if only as a exercise in morality. It would have to be proven that the superior force (ie, the Borg) really did pose an immediate and existential threat to the Federation. Most would say that they did, but some have argued that they Borg didn't wipe out civilizations but "preserved" them...

What, though, if it isn't a question of 'we want', but 'we need' their land. The land can't support both or the indigenous people won't share and there is either nowhere to go or driving them out would be as good as death. It may be better to die nobly rather than do such a thing for resources, but on the other hand I can see how it could very well seem right to do it.
For instance: Suppose the 'lol I WANTS TO NUKEZ PANDORA' types are right and lack of unobtainium will cause civil war on Earth. Is it right to wipe out the Na'Vi (who number, it's reasonable to assume, less than 100,000,000) if half a billion humans could die in that civil war?

Well, there is a limitation with the Avatar universe, in that we have conflicting evidence on the important of Unobtanium-- some see it as "vital to survival" whereas it may also just be "vital to maintain their high standard of living". If the loss of Unobtanium on Earth might cause the destruction of the human race, there's a serious moral quandry involved. But if the loss of Unobtanium simply means a loss of luxury and profit and efficiency, then it is easier to make the decision.

But there's sort of a middle ground-- if Earth's economy (and maybe the environment) has become so dependent on Unobtanium that removing it would create serious hardship-- but not death-- what then? If Earth's population suffers a catastrophic war or loss of services to support their lifestyle, and they degenerate into a Mad Max or Medieval style standard of living, what then? The Human species manages to survive, but in a serious degraded status... you've technically avoided 'genocide', the destruction of all humanity, but does it count?

I suppose I am mirroring discussions at the thread in question, and I should stop. I was following that thread for awhile but stopped when it seemed to be going in circles. I'm intereste din the genocide question, and the situation in Avatar is just a tempting example to use, even though by my own admission we don't know enough about the background to know the motivations at work...

[someone_else]

I don't like how people shot down Purple with so bullshit arguments.
And who the fuck cares if he does not spell correctly Nietzsche.
It's a fucking difficult name to spell.

Why do so many newbies fail to understand this, figuring out this boards culture and accepted norms is not fucking difficult!

Maybe because in most forums there are more civilized people that try to discuss without shouting moron at each other every post.
And calling "culture" this habit of sniping at each other with the obvious intent of proving yourself superior is a serious offense to "culture". It is childish. Although somewhat fun.

That said, let's begin to prove that I'm superior to you.

If they don't understand communication by radio, they cannot function as an interstellar civilization. What is so hard about that to understand?

Maybe you didn't realize that "radio" is a method for transmitting data, just like a piece of paper.
Just having a radio does not make your translation job easier.
Ever tried to understand the sounds that a old days modem emitted in a telephne line? Could you?
But they are Sounds! And it is Telephone!

TELEPATHY DOES NOT EXIST, YOU FUCKING RETARD. If it did exist, it would most likely work on... radio. Or at least the electromagnetic spectrum, which is just as easy to translate for the purposes of interspecies communication.

Same brainfucking as above. Using the same carrier signal does not help you a lot in understanding the message.

Do you realize just how horribly inefficient this communication setup (ed note: docking ships to communicate) would be? There is little need to worry about bothering them or them bothering us if this is the case because their ability to expand in any decent ammount of time will be significantly hampered by the sheer waste of fuel. Hell, it would even give us something to trade: better communications in exchange for... whatever they want to give us. Preferrably peace.

Do you realize that any communication that is not FTL will take an entire lifespan or even more to just reach its frikkin destination? (and maybe get even out of range due to inverse-square law?) Docking ships is the most efficient way to have two-way interaction within the diplomat's lifespan.
Assuming that the aliens use ships and are not the ship. Or something weirder.

Here's a hint: when it comes to serious proposals of how we would communicate with alien species, the first rule of thumb is to make things as easy for them as possible-- sort of the opposite of cryptography. All it takes to say "we just want to talk" is a series of prime numbers encoded in a radio signal, and the rest is just math. This isn't just speculative: ever heard of a radioglyph? I doubt you have.

Maybe you don't realize that how they will interpret what they can get from the images depends form their mindset. Images are a language too. If you try to transfer any meanignful concept of course.

Diplomacy is difficult =! diplomacy is useless, idiot.

And you still don't get why everyone thinks you are morally bankrupt.

Have you ever tried diplomacy with a 5 years old? That's the closest thing we have to aliens imho. And they're interactive too.

To me, wiping out all of anything is more extreme than destroying some part of something else. If the RDA bombed Pandora into glass and killed all the Na'vi, then not only would they be killing all living Na'vi, but all potential future Na'vi. All the opportunities Na'vi society has, all the things it could develop into, all the ideas and concepts it could teach the larger universe, are gone.

What the fuck do I care for "future" Na'vi if I risk extinction (or social collapse that is about the same)? Also, their "living as one with the nature" will pevent any decent advancement in both science and technology. They will repeat the same things their forefathers did until destruction.

Whereas a civil war on Earth, even one that causes mass casualties, does not, as long as people are left alive and civilization continues to exist.

You say that we should suffer MASS CASUALITIES for to allow bunch of worthless blueskins to live in peace with nature? Are you fucking insane?
What kind of political leader will EVER do that? It's just ridiculous.
And then you shoot down others as "sociopaths" just because they show some sign of self-preservation instinct.

I'm not advocating the "nuke the blueskins" (well, i'd like to see them dead, mainly because I hated Avatar), but finding a solution that can allow both survival without MASS CASUALITIES on both sides.

I ask again: Do you apply this principle to your own species?

YES.
Do you know enough history? War has always been with us from day 1. Won't go away easily.

The problem is that without a suitably unearthly population of aliens... communication becomes far more likely. Creatures that evolved in an environment like ours will have to adapt to conditions like the ones we adapted to, which makes it much, much less plausible that we will be unable to talk to them.

Realize that it is bullshit. How much you resemble an octopus? Or a dolphin? Both are quite different while relatively smart. But both evolved on Earth. You really expect to find aliens with the same biochemistry that are also so similar to us that communication would be doable? On what mindfucking you base this assumption? Star Trek?

First of all, the natives of that era weren't hippies any more than the people who live in those same areas today are. They were just as violent and ferocious as the people who conquered them. The difference is that they were, by and large, not as well organized. Guess what? Organization requires the ability to recognize that there are times when it isn't smart to try and kill someone for being inconvenient.

I think that technology also played a part. Y'know, if they attack with guns and you have spears and bows....