Sunday, October 28, 2007

Film-maker and friend Paul Kimball suggests that the human species isn't ready for irrevocable proof of ET visitation. And, to a point, I have to agree. But a large part of me is convinced that we need our paradigmatic bars rattled -- and if that means enduring the sociological sea-change likely to occur in the wake of ET "disclosure," I think it's worth the ride.

More to the point: what, exactly, do we stand to lose? We're in the midst of one of the most massive extinction events in the history of the planet. The evidence indicates an imminent plunge into ecological chaos. Ironically, while technology advances, our prospects as a species recede.

So while I obviously can't speak on behalf of the rest of the planet, I'm up for the proverbial White House lawn landing. Daniel Pinchbeck and others speak of a deep need to catalyze global consciousness. To me, irrefutable evidence that we share the Cosmos with at least one other intelligent species could be the very catalyst we're looking for -- short-term consequences be damned.

Evolution has never been easy; birth is seldom without potential dangers.


Paul Kimball said...


You and others view "contact" through that Western, eductaed, middle-to-upper class point of view I discussed. The vast majority of the world does not share that point of view, including many in the West. A "contact" event would, in my opinion, be disastrous in the short term, with unpredictable consequences in the long-term. We just aren't ready for it as a species, and it is the height of cultural imperialism and hubris for us to suggest that because some of us may be ready (indeed, may even want that change), the rest of the world is, or at the very least should be forced along for the ride.

If I was in charge, and knew about ET on Earth, and could keep it secret, all the while slowly seeding the technology into society as well as the "knowledge", through the media (i.e. films), I wouldn't hesitate to "cover it up".

I'm pretty sure the Aztecs would have done the same if they could have.


Mac said...

I know where you're coming from. And I *still* say "bring it on."

Paul Kimball said...




Mac said...

You're a coward and I'm going to CONFIRM that you're about to be EXPOSED! ;-)

Paul Kimball said...




mr. intense said...

Gosh, guys, maybe you're _both_ wrong, just by assuming certain things. As I will now proceed to do, also. (We just can't help it, being mostly human) 8^}

I know Paul has characterized his comments over at his blog as speculation, which is appropriate to emphasize, and I'm doing the same, but one thing that bothered me was the use of the factoid that, in human history, when one more advanced society has had contact with a less advanced society, the less advanced one comes out the poorer, and the contact is to their long-term detriment or even elimination, due to disease, war, or just superior technology combined with more aggressive behavior toward the "less evolved" society. The most common example is how the various European cultures decimated the native North and South American cultures.

I would agree, in general, but then of what real use or potential accuracy is it to use _human_ history as any gauge about the possible nature of non-human contact with humanity? That seems far too anthropocentric to me.

We have _no_ idea of the actual intentions, motives, or purposes there may be in some non-human entity making contact with humanity. They may not even have intentions, motives, or purposes, at least as we understand them.

In a way, I'm suggesting that it's impossible to remove oneself from a human frame of reference, in considering the various possibilities, due to the fact that we are _human_.

Using the human history of conflict is an example of grasping at some basis for considering what might happen in some future, overt or formal contact--the problem is, when you're talking about non-humans, we just don't have any idea of what the nature of that contact may be unless or until it occurs. Or, it could already be occurring, on such a subtle and long-term basis, that we just don't know it. That would be rather perturbing, if so.

Even then, however an "alien" may portray itself to humanity, or however it communicates it's reasons for contact, should we believe them, or accept any reasons they might somehow communicate?

I think that could be a very grave mistake. What if they're lying?

Consider the following wikipedia synopsis of a pertinent episode of The Twilight Zone:

"A race of aliens known as the Kanamits land on Earth and promise to be nothing but helpful to the cause of humanity. Initially wary of the intentions of such a highly advanced race, even the most skeptical humans are convinced when their code-breakers begin to translate one of the Kanamit's books, with the seemingly innocuous title, "To Serve Man." Sharing their advanced technology, the aliens quickly solve all of Earth's greatest woes, eradicating hunger, disease, and the need for warfare. Soon, humans are volunteering for trips to the Kanamits' home planet, which is supposedly a paradise. All is not well, however, when a code-breaker discovers the Kanamits’ true intentions. Their book, "To Serve Man", is a cookbook."

Pass me the Martian barbecue sauce, please! Okay, okay, just teasing!

But I'm serious that the issue of whether "the government", if it knows anything specific or could at least confirm that there is some form of non-human intelligence and/or consciousness, as possibly represented by a relatively small number of ufo cases, begs so many questions and poses so many potential problems.

Paul's reference to the Star Trek concept of the "prime imperative" is obviously not being followed, or we would have virtually no ufo phenomena to debate, and it certainly seems pretty obvious by now that _something_ is certainly going on, and has been for a very long time, but just _what_ is still unknown, at least to the greater public, and perhaps even to the "deepest black" operators within the most advanced military and intelligence groups that may be analyzing these issues, if indeed there are any.

I suspect that at least the US government, and other governments, do have _some_ more concrete data than they will be willing to release for the forseeable future, due to some of the reasons Paul cites.

Whatever they may know, it is very likely to be partial, incomplete, and subject to various interpretations.

The USG would not admit that it A) has some kind of proof we are being visited, and B} that we don't by what or for what purposes, and C) there is nothing they can do about it, to deal with it, let alone "stop" it.

That, if it were a fact, and were somehow made known in a convincing, provable way, could be terribly disruptive.

I tend to agree with Paul that A) we are not ready, but that, on the other hand, B) we may never be "ready", and that C) even if there is some form of non-human presence, for anyone to think that they would provide technology, or provide help to us to overcome our problems is foolish and most likely wrong and that D) we must overcome our own self-created problems, without "deus ex machina"-style rescue from "on high," as to think that way, or expect that as a real possibility is terribly wrong and has the very real potential for eventual human destruction, as it makes us co-dependent, it impugns humanity's perception of itself, generally, as the highest intellect on the planet, and may result in less striving and effort to overcome our problems if we think there is an "easy way out" via uber-intelligent non-humans who will help us over the near future problems of over population, resource depletion, ecological damage, global warming, etcetera, etc.

Most here interested in these questions can forsee and are also beginning to realize there may not be effective solutions, within the available time-frames, to avoid species extinction. If so, well, que sera sera.

And, if such "assitance" were provided, what happens when the next series of human activities creates situations that may result in the potential for species destruction if we didn't learn how to overcome these kinds of challenges the first time around?

Are we going to ask for more help, or more solutions to problems we create but can't figure out the solutions to? That would both devolutionary and create inevitable dependence, and might preclude real efforts to come up with our own solutions.

Jeez, if I were an "alien", I'd get awful tired of fixing some other species problems all the time, and dealing with incessant requests for more tech or data or whatever than might not be prudent or appropriate to provide our species.

Let's put it this way--if we can't figure out how to survive, and succeed as a species, and evolve ourselves and/or our technologies of "remediation" directly (the biogenetic "bootstrap" or transhumanist concept, which is also fraught with extraordinary dangers), maybe we won't survive.

OK, so maybe we won't get to other planets or stars to populate. And maybe, considering what we have done here to ourselves and our own planet, we shouldn't. Or just won't, because of our limitations.

[warning: paragraphs in brackets are philosophical, speculative mind candy, not real food for thought]

[Maybe the non-humans are the "alien" equivalent of anthropologists, and it's of interest to see how semi-intelligent species paint themselves into a corner and what goes on before they completely self-destruct. That could be useful to know.]

[Perhaps we are part of a study, peer-reviewed "papers" will be presented, and we will become yet another of an unknown number of "lessons learned" non-human seminars about how extremely difficult it is for a species that is planet-bound, using the resources of said planet, to find some way of not imploding.]

[Or, maybe, we provide great entertainment. We could make great pets! Ha! We'd end up biting the tentacle that feeds us. Of course, I'm speculating also, and could be and probably am very wrong, too.]

My point is that We Just Do Not Know. Perhaps, in lieu of some "formal," overt and direct contact, we cannot know. Pretty damn frustrating, eh?


There also seem to be at least some clues in the morphology of or known patterns of ufo "display" or "behavior"--it is rare, covert, has built in plausible deniability, evolves, and more than anything, provides enough data to make many think there may be something real to the non-human interpretation of the phenomena, but never enough to formally or publically confirm or prove it. Now why is that?

"They" are neither obvious or provable NOR completely secret or invisible. We are being tantilized, as it were, by being shown fragments, the tip of the iceberg, in ways.

"They" do not want to be known in any overt way. But there are a number of cases on record, like the RB-47 case, and the recent Chicago airport case, that suggest something real, non-human, and intelligent or intelligently guided is involved. But, still, no "landing on the White House lawn" (which would be pretty stupid to attempt anyway, post 9/11, considering the manpad missle launchers on the roof)--anything like that would definitely cause a panic.

No, I'm sorry, there is literally nothing we can say, with any accuracy, either about how contact might occur, what the nature of the non-humans might be, or, especially, what the effect on humanity might be, although I tend to think it would be terribly disruptive for a very long time.

It would be a genuine paradigm shift, but I doubt very much that it would trigger a unifying process between all the factions, ideologies, ethnic, "tribal", nationalistic and religious operating belief systems presently in deep conflict on earth.

I think it very possible that any such "formal/proven" contact, at this time, considering all the other horrifying problems facing mankind over the next 50 years, if we even make it that long, might be insurmountable and cause mass chaos that might very well accelerate our demise even more quickly than we are already proceeding steadily toward.

Of course, if humanity is facing extinction at its own hands, and some "aliens" offered their help, we would probably, for the most part, say, yeah! Save our asses!

Perhaps we would become a valuable natural resource ourselves as a result. A protected species. Who knows? I certainly don't. But it's interesting to debate the issues, at least. No matter how you look at the future of humanity, we are in for a very bumpy ride...

What a fucking dilemma.

An odd thought: there are several tens of thousands of people on this planet, within "industrialized/ civilized" societies, out of our current 6.7 billion, who have IQ's equivalent to 180 to 230 or so, who must also see what's happening to our planet--what, if anything, are they doing to help insure or assist in our long-term survival and sustainability? They might be our greatest potential resource for possible solutions. Where are they and what, if anything, are they doing about our imminent crisis of potential species destruction?

[Well, far more than enough said. I think this may be the longest blog comment I've ever posted. Playing with these ideas and concepts on the fly is rather mind-warping, as my latter comments sort of indicate. I'm tired. And a bit too goofy. Time to go to sleep and dream on it. I gave myself a headache doing this. More pedantic, excessively verbose and loquacious verbiage tomorrow! Blarg! 8^} ]

Anonymous said...

After reading the above comments, I despair at adding anything more to the debate. (Well done, on all accounts!)
Still, what are we to do as a species? Continue to make believe the emperor is wearing clothes? Manipulating the "Truth" for "our own good" is a slippery slope with which we should be all too familiar.
Should we continue to have government parade 'costumed aliens' out at news conferences after literally thousands witness an event? Do we accept a news media that must have the required 'giggle factor' when these encounters are reported by too many reliable witnesses to simply ignore? That kind of self delusion seems to me the least desirable.
I suspect that if disclosure of the ET presence were to be made, society as a whole would find that they still have to 'go to work' in the morning. Still need to clean the garage out; eat, sleep and carry on all the stuff that we have been doing.
Let us make of ourselves, our societies and humanity as a whole, whatever we are to become, based on actuality (as much of it as we are capable of perceiving anyway).