Instigator / Pro
1465
rating
36
debates
58.33%
won
Topic
#5535
If we we encounter Aliens, should we be hostile to them on contact?
Status
Debating
Waiting for the next argument from the instigator.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 29,999
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Thank you, Con, for accepting this debate. I am confident it will be a productive one.
Opening argument: Why we should be aggressive
Many people contend that we should not be aggressive towards aliens upon first contact because we cannot be certain if their technology surpasses ours. Although this argument holds some logic, it is fundamentally flawed, Firstly, it presumes that the aliens harbor solely peaceful intentions, which is something we cannot ascertain for certain. Secondly, even if the aliens are more technologically advanced, revealing this awareness could be just as detrimental, if not more so, than displaying hostility upon first contact. Just like when we deal with other countries, Planet Earth must show strength not weakness.
Claiming that Planet Earth is exclusively human territory, and that no other species can claim it without our consent is precisely the kind of stance required to uphold our sovereignty in the face of a potentially more advanced interstellar civilization. History has shown that assuming benign intentions in the political arena on the global stage can have catastrophic outcomes, such as World War II. It would be unreasonable to expect a different scenario on an intergalactic level. Earth belongs to humanity, and in the event of encountering extraterrestrial life, we must demonstrate our resilience and assertiveness.
Second argument: Peace through Assertion
In life, it is a fact that respect is not simply given; it must be earned. This universal principle holds true in friendships, careers, military service, and certainly in dealings with foreign powers. If we encountered aliens and disclosed everything about our resources, governmental structures, and military capabilities, they might not perceive us as a peaceful and intelligent species. Instead, they could view us as a divided people, vulnerable to internal conflict, which could pave the way for their easy occupation. Conversely, if we demonstrated vigilance against such infiltrations and a lack of trust, the aliens might be compelled to postpone any attempts at conquest, thereby preserving peace for a significantly longer period than otherwise possible.
True peace is not achieved through peaceful negotiations or mutual respect alone; it is secured by the realization that the effort involved would outweigh the reward. It is crucial to convey to any potential extraterrestrial threat that, while humanity may prefer peace, it will defend itself with indomitable spirit if necessary. Such tasks cannot be accomplished without the level of assertiveness that a hostile approach entails. Peace achieved through aggression is often considered superior to peace attained through diplomacy.
Conclusion:
In the event of an encounter with extraterrestrial beings, it is crucial to assert our position aggressively to maintain Earth's sovereignty and prevent potential occupation. Achieving peace through strength is essential to affirm that Earth is the domain of humanity, and while war is not the preferred resolution, it should not be an effective strategy against us.
The pleasure is mine, I hope that I don't disappoint.
Opening statement:
I believe that acting with hostility upon first contact with aliens would be detrimental(or at least more likely detrimental as compared to the other options) to us both in the case of if said aliens came with friendship in mind and in the case of if they came with conquest in mind instead.
I would like to first address a few statements briefly so as to provide context and setup for my counter arguments.
Responses:
because we cannot be certain if their technology surpasses ours.
A minor correction, but I would go so far as to say that alien technology surpasses ours for certain , or at the very least, the technology of aliens that are able to reach our star system.
Firstly, it presumes that the aliens harbor solely peaceful intentions
I beg to differ. I can not speak for others, but when I use the argument "alien technology surpasses our own", I am intending to package this argument with "and therefor we don't stand a chance in a fight against them"
while humanity may prefer peace, it will defend itself with indomitable spirit if necessary.
A "hostility upon first contact" approach betrays the very nature of the first part of that statement. Unless by hostility upon first contact you do not mean via military force. In either case I wish for you to elaborate on this in more detail.
Peace achieved through aggression is often considered superior to peace attained through diplomacy.
I wish to give a correction here as well. Peace through power is what you are looking for, aggression accomplishes little without actual power to back it up.
Setting the stage
To set the stage first for our narrative, we are going about our day living out our lives when suddenly, we are made aware of extraterrestrials approaching our planet. Now how are we made aware of them? It could be that we detected their spaceship(s) via radio waves or some kind of sonar. It could be that we detected their spaceship(s) visually as a result of one of our many telescopes currently used in the study of astronomy. It could be that they managed to establish communications with us from afar somehow. It could be something else. I will let you decide what it was that made us aware of their presence.
One thing that is fact though (unless you wish to challenge it) is that they have entered our star system, or that they are about to enter it. From this fact (as well as other things that will be explained) we should be able to make a group of very educated guesses regarding the traits and features of our visitors. Some so reasonable that I would like to imagine that they qualify as facts. (at least, until/if you challenge them)
My claimed facts
- The aliens have reached (or will reach) our star system within a lifetime since leaving their home planet. (an alternative explanation could be made that the space flight included families so that it could last several generations, however I'd like to think this to be the less likely assumption. That it is more likely that the pilots that left their planet are the same pilots who entered our star system)
- An alien's lifespan is at most, as long as our longest living land animal. (An Aldabra giant tortoise, at 250 years. And even that one is a special case, their average lifespan is 80-120 years)
- The closest the aliens' star system could be to ours is 4.2 light years. Given that the closest star to us is Proxima Centauri at that distance. [1]
The deductions
- The aliens reached our Star systems within the span of at most 250 years of leaving their home planet (and I believe 250 years is very generous duo to assuming their lifespan is longer than ours, and not taking into consideration childhood or elderly years)
- Based on 1, the aliens had to cover a distance no shorter than 4 light years within the span of 250 years. Which would've required no less than the velocity of 1.6% of the speed of light. (and this is based on generous assumptions about their distance from us and their lifespans. The velocity they achieved is likely greater than this)
- Based on 2, the aliens had achieved a velocity that is no less than 26.5 times the velocity of our fastest human-made object. Parker Solar Probe at 0.06% the speed of light (and this was in part due to the aid of gravity). Or no less than 295 times the velocity of our fastest interstellar spacecraft, Voyager 1, after it'd left the solar system.
- Based on 3, any aliens that enter our star system have to be much more technologically advanced than us. And additionally have to have more/better resources, or better efficiency at using resources, or likely some combination of both.
Aggression and Power
Firstly to preface, When Pro said "True peace is not achieved through peaceful negotiations or mutual respect alone", this statement can indeed be true in a lot of cases. It indeed is true that deterrence through consequences is a great motivator for war to not escalate. When either or both parties determine that the cost is not worth their goals, or as Pro put it "it is secured by the realization that the effort involved would outweigh the reward."
Where I am in complete disagreement however is the elaboration that follows. That this is achieved through aggression. Now while it is possible that the intention behind your message was "aggression backed by power", given that your argument currently as it reads lacks this, *and* humanity is very lacking in power compared to any aliens that can reach our star system (a point which I'll elaborate on shortly here), I will assume for the time being that your message is just "aggression" or is "peace through aggression".
While peace through deterrence can be achieved, and might even be the only way to achieve peace with others who are selfish, who only see you as a means to an end, as a goal, as an objective. Peace through deterrence can not work with aggression alone. Peace through deterrence can not work without power. While aggression could potentially amplify the fear, the effect of deterrence as a result of the presence of power, as a result of the threat of that power being used. While aggression could amplify the effect of power. Aggression can not be used to replace power. Aggression can not produce peace through deterrence at the absence of sufficient power. Aggression is nothing without power. True power projection requires power.
Assuming that the aliens that meet us wish to use us and our planet for their own ends. Wish to have us pay resources to them as tribute for their "protection", wish to install a few of their species on our planet as acting governors in order to properly absorb us into their galactic empire, or something else along those lines, an aggressive attitude alone will not make such a colonizing society go back on their plans. At best such a bluff might halt them for a moment and cause them to scout us, to gather more information on us in order to either confirm or deny their worries, but all that will accomplish is buy us a little more time. I'd argue not nearly enough for it to be worth the potential consequences of our aggression.(another bullet point which I will go more into)
And assuming that the aliens that meet us are peaceful, and have no such selfish wishes. Aggression will, at best, cause an alien society that already does not want to fight us originally to confirm their wishes to not fight us. But it could potentially cause a peaceful society to wish to fight us, to protect the galaxy from us. More on this on the consequences of aggression.
An examination of power
In the previous few paragraphs I talked about how Aggression can not aid in peace through deterrence without power. I would like now to demonstrate how we can come to the conclusion that we indeed, lack such power, when compared to any (or most) alien species able to enter our star system.
Firstly there is the simple fact that said alien species had been able to achieve interstellar travel while we are so far away from that, we have yet to make a full round trip to and from a planet inside our own star system. Secondly, their travel velocity had to be no less than 26.5 times that of our fastest object, and no less than 295 times that of anything we sent after it'd left our star system. Thirdly, since they would need to reach such a velocity outside of their star system, decelerate from said velocity when reaching our star system, and from there be able to reach and even land on our planet. They must have such a mastery on space flight that they do not require nearly as heavy a reliance on gravitational forces for space travel as we do.
There are potentially more reasons, but these alone (or even just any one of them) are enough to showcase such a huge gap in technological advancement that we could say some of the technology aliens have might be what is sci-fi to us. While it might not be possible to pinpoint exactly what techs, tools, resources and resource efficiency they have at their disposal. I believe there are a few that we could determine with confidence, and a few we could guess as possibilities.
Solar Power: Given how far along we'd gotten so far in regards to harnessing solar power. It comes to reason that aliens more advanced than us would have come even much further along. And that with spacecraft intended to be sent to another star system (ours) they would equip it with the necessary tools so that they'd have a constant power source once they've reached our star system.
Spacecraft Artillery: If, as an intelligent species that dominated their planet the same way we dominated ours, these aliens have roughly a similar history of war and bloodshed as we do. Their military tech should be at the very least not lagging that far behind the rest of their tech. And while it is all but certain that their military tech should far surpass ours. I can not say for certain that the spaceship(s) that arrive at our star system would have artillery capable of launching projectiles into our planet from outer space. It is a very fearful possibility.
Energy weapons: Given that we are already at the experimental stages of DEWs(directed energy weapons), it wouldn't be that unreasonable to assume that aliens able to reach our star system will have already advanced far enough in this tech to be able to apply it practically.
I could dive deeper, but the purpose of this is to demonstrate that not only could we never truly threaten any alien species capable of reaching our star system. But they could even potentially have the capability of laying harm on us from outer space with impunity. And if they have all 3 techs I had underlined, they could even potentially do it forever. Having the capability of forcing us into submission without ever putting themselves in danger.
The consequences of aggression
After addressing the technological and power dynamic of this scenario, I would like to address the emotional, motivational and situations based aspects of this scenario. Firstly, let us examine how the scenario unfolds based on the different kinds of motivations the aliens had when reaching our star system.
Colonizers: Be it with the goal of having us as a subject planet, annexing us proper, simply having us pay tax as a mostly autonomous planet, or any such similar relationship where the goal is to subjugate us. Aggression without power will do very little benefit to us here, as in most likelihood they've either sent a lightly armed scouting party that was not intended to immediately invade us anyway. Or a more properly armed (and likely more numerous) invasion force. And if their attitude is that of space colonizers, then likely they also have the capability of in some way laying siege on a planet from outer space. Not only would they likely be perfectly willing to siege us into submission from outer space. Our aggression might only cause to embolden their resolve. To make them further believe that we are not a species that would be immoral to bomb and kill from afar. That it would be perfectly proper to severely reduce our population until we're easier to control.
With Colonizers while the lack of an aggressive attitude might lead to them at least initially attempting to subjugate us through peaceful means. By trying to negotiate us into surrendering our sovereignty. (and either we refuse and they declare war, or we agree and they subjugate us but little/no violence happens). An aggressive first reception without sufficient power all but guarantees war. All but guarantees that they will try to achieve their initial goals by military force.
Space travelers: It is possible that the spacecraft that reaches our star system is affiliated with an organization that is similar to that of our NASA. Maybe even that they were unaware our star system has organic life until they're close enough to observe earth to determine this. Likely these are visitors with no intentions of subjugation or violence. So if we were neutral or friendly to them, they might greet us or might ignore and avoid us. However if we were to react to them with hostility. The best case scenario is that they were neutral about us wanting to avoid us and that that didn't change. It is also possible that we could turn them from friendly to neutral, or from either of friendly or neutral to hostile. That we either encourage them to take aggression against us with whatever arms they might've brought with them. Or that we encourage them to accelerate their arms race back at their home while they observe us.
And finally, if these space travelers came through a one-way trip, and do not have enough resources to go back to their home planet, and we deny them the permission to land on our planet, unless they are of exceptionally high moral character they will try to survive off of our resources by any means necessary. Best case scenario they came with no arms or weapons whatsoever and fail to kill or harm any of us in this endeavor. Also likely is that they did come with something they can fight us with and kill some of us, few or many. Either way, violence and bloodshed that would've simply not happened in this scenario had we not been hostile.
Exterminators: A scenario in which the aliens that reach our star system wish to eradicate most/all intelligent life proper so that they can use our planet completely unchallenged, or for whatever other reasons such as religious, racist or such, basically space Nazis. Admittedly this is such a scenario in which aggression is unlikely to make things worse. As our visitors already intend to exterminate us and have little to no desire to communicate or negotiate with us. However even this is a scenario in which immediate aggression yields us little to no benefit. If said species wishes to destroy us and our planet then in all likelihood they will have come with the necessary arms to do so, or it is a scouting party and they're ready to send in the death squad after relaying this info to their home. If their wishes is to eradicate us without doing damage to our planet, environment and/or infrastructure. Then likely they will have already prepared a means to effectively do so such as poison gas inside a container/projectile or some kind of biological weapon. Meeting them with hostility will do little to nothing to sway them from this motivation, so long as we have no actual true power to threaten them with. So long as they have the ability to exterminate us (or severely reduce our population and fighter power) from the safety of outer space.
Our visitors could come in several other forms. Diplomats envoys, religious preachers, merchants, charitable Samaritans. In pretty much every scenario I can imagine, there isn't one where our aggression without sufficient power will make things better. Will be a better outcome than being neutral or friendly to them. There isn't a scenario I can imagine where aggression brings a better outcome than the alternatives. And there are many scenarios in which aggression brings a worse outcome than the alternatives. In our current state hostility has no benefits and possible consequences.
Our motivations and goals
In the previous section I talked plenty about the possible motivations our visitors might have. There is the question of our own motivations as well, I would argue that part of the exercise of answering this debate, answering "If we we encounter Aliens, should we be hostile to them on contact?", is to question our motivations, what are our goals and what are we attempting to get out of this interaction with our visitors. Here is the list of goals I can think of in no particular order of importance.
- Survival: Obviously we wish not to be killed by outside visitors, as we simply wish to not be killed by anything in general. If all else is equal we will prefer an outcome in which less of us die than if more of us die.
- Sovereignty: For many reasons we would prefer not to answer to a higher authority. We wish not to pay them resources especially what with our own struggles. We wish to decide our own laws rather than have outsiders do this for us. If all else is equal we will prefer to not answer to overlords than to do so.
- Technology: Whether occupation or through friendly exchange. If our interaction with our visitors result in us gaining their text books, their knowledge, their technology, or at the very least some of it. Then at least that part in isolation most of us will deem as a positive change. If all else is equal we will prefer to have increased our knowledge than to not do so.
- Culture: Customs, laws, history and such. While I have no guarantee that any of it from our visitors will be better than ours or that there can be such a thing objectively. It will still be different, even if slightly, and there might be new perspective in there that we can gain wisdom from. For example their history, even if it ends up pretty similar to ours, could very likely have in it very unique stories and events that we could learn a thing or two from. If all else is equal we will prefer to learn more about an alien culture than to not do so.
- Trade: Even if they completely eclipse us in technology and resource efficiency. It could still be that we might have resources that they wish to trade for some of their own. For example perhaps our planet has in it minerals that they've never had in their home planet or any of the planets in their star system. While there might be some argument as to whether trade is usually beneficial for both parties or it isn't. I would still argue that, if all else is equal we will prefer to have these trade opportunities available than to not have them.
- Protection: "Protection" is usually the promise of dictators. Of colonizers or sovereigns who wish to have us answer to them as their lesser. However given that in this scenario an alien species are able to reach our star system. It is possible that there could be more that can do that. It is very unlikely, and this might as a result be the weakest of our goals. But even then, if all else is equal we will prefer to have the military protection of another alien society than to not have it.
There could be more but these are the potential goals that I wish to address. And I acknowledge that the weight of their relative importance differs from person to person. For example some people would give up their sovereignty for protection against even a slightly stronger opposition. While others would completely forsake protection and survival to guard their sovereignty even against the strongest foe. To prefer death to submission. Now I wish to address how aggression and lack thereof (especially at our current power) affects our likelihood in achieving these goals.
Protection: Whether as vassals to overlords, or as equal allies to a society, our visitors will have less desire to protect us, to use their resources and/or put themselves at harms way for the sake of safeguarding us, if their most recent memory of encountering us was that of aggression rather than friendship, or neutrality.
Trade: If our initial encounter is that of friendship or neutrality. They might choose to trade with us, they might choose to avoid us, they might choose to exploit us unfairly. If our initial encounter is that of aggression. They'll be less willing to trade with us and will prefer to avoid or exploit us.
Culture: They might their their stories, customs, laws and history with us if we were neutral or friendly. They also might instead wish to keep it to themselves. If we were aggressive however, they'll be less likely to wish to share it.
Technology: If we were friendly or neutral they might decide to either help us advance technologically, or not do so. If we were aggressive however, they will be much less likely to desire to make our aggression more dangerous by adding power to it. Regardless of whether they are colonizers or pacifistic space travelers.
Sovereignty: Ironically, aggression currently will only potentially hurt here, and won't help. If we are friendly or neutral, those who wish to subjugate us will proceed to do so. Those who wish to avoid us might change their minds and greet us with friendship instead. And those who wish to greet us in friendship will do just that. However if we are hostile. Those who wish to subjugate us will still proceed to do so. Those who wish to avoid us might either avoid us or deem us dangerous and try to subjugate us. And those who wish to greet us might either avoid us or deem us dangerous and try to subjugate us, with a very small likelihood of continuing to try to be friendly with us. There does not exist a scenario in which the chances of maintaining our sovereignty is increased by being aggressive. And there exist some scenarios in which it even decreases it.
Survival: If we are neutral or friendly, colonizers will attempt to negotiate us into an unfair deal. A deal in which they benefit at our expense. And if we refuse to submit to them they might either back down, or select to force their deal by military force. They also might instead use military force immediately to attempt to subjugate us without prior negotiation. Space travelers will either avoid us or greet us with friendship. Exterminators will rarely negotiate with us, or attempt to communicate with us at all, will proceed with exterminating us as soon as they feel they're ready to do so.
If we are aggressive, colonizers will be less likely to go into initial negotiation attempts, those of them who had planned to back down upon our refusal, some of them might leave us alone, others among them might attack us, all of those who planned to attack us after we refuse to submit to them during negotiations will attack in response to our aggression, and all of those who had planned to attack us without prior negotiation will attack in response to our aggression. Space travelers will either avoid us, or deem us a threat that shouldn't be left alone and attack us. Exterminators will proceed with their original plans to eradicate us in response to our aggression.
And additionally, in all cases with the colonizers where they attack us. Our initial aggression might make them kill more of us before pressing for peace, before attempting to negotiate us into surrender. It also might not. However it will never make them kill less of us. Not only will aggression potentially increase our likelihood of suffering casualties. Aggression will potentially also increase the volume of our casualties.
Conclusion
We should not act with initial hostility as we have little to nothing to gain from it, and much to lose. We lack the necessary power and threat to achieve the benefits of power projection that aggression could bring.
Post conclusion question
While you might not have to answer this. I wish to ask it anyway to potentially make this scenario easier to address. When you say we should be hostile to them on contact. What exactly to you mean with this, or what potential scenarios are you imagining? That if they ask for permission to land we refuse it under threat of violence? That if they land we attack and arrest or kill them? That if they enter our atmosphere we shoot at them with our anti-air arms? The exact method might be relevant to addressing the nature of this debate.
Round 2
My opponent presents a well-structured argument, yet the underlying logic is fundamentally flawed. The argument follows this reasoning: an assumption of good intentions plus the belief that aliens possess superior technology equals the conclusion that aggression is detrimental. While this framework may seem understandable, it collapses because an assumption does not equate to knowledge. The mere fact that aliens have traveled to our part of the galaxy does not necessarily mean they are more advanced.
Argument 1; Humanity is strong
Con may try to convince us that we are weak, but we are not. We are billions strong, capable of surmounting any challenge. Humanity has endured wars, plagues, and death. Aliens should be no different. Caution is necessary, but it should not be confused with fear. Indeed, showing fear is the very thing we must avoid if we wish to keep our Earth safe and free. We have advanced weaponry and artificial intelligence. If we are capable of giving none living objects the ability to speak and create nukes, we may not be the strongest in the galaxy, but we are not by any means weak.
Argument 2: friendliness is weakness.
In the political realm, passive responses to threats of aggression are not rewarded. Those who offer kindness in response to tyranny are perceived as weak. Weak nations often fall to stronger ones. Why should planets be any different? Aliens allowed to act hostilely without consequence will not see it as an attempt to avoid conflict and be reasonable, but as an opportunity to conquer us without resistance. Diplomacy is only advisable when both parties regard each other as equals. Aliens, which some claim are superior to us, will likely not engage diplomatically with a planet of primitives that do not retaliate against their insults and threats.
Argument 3: We want Earth, not the galaxy.
Even if my opponent is right that aliens were more advanced and capable of traveling light years to reach us, it wouldn't matter. We could still demonstrate our policy of self-defense on our own planet. There is no necessity to journey across the cosmos to safeguard our loved ones and homes. Should the aliens desire the galaxy, they can take it. For humanity, true victory would be to remain undisturbed on Earth. Earth's independence is paramount, and achieving this may require a policy of hostility to ensure we are left undisturbed.
Rebuttals:
The aliens have reached (or will reach) our star system within a lifetime since leaving their home planet. (an alternative explanation could be made that the space flight included families so that it could last several generations, however I'd like to think this to be the less likely assumption. That it is more likely that the pilots that left their planet are the same pilots who entered our star system)
Pure speculation alone doesn't suffice. Merely reaching our galaxy doesn't reveal much about their technological capabilities. We would need to examine and understand the precise means and methods they used to achieve it.
- An alien's lifespan is at most, as long as our longest living land animal. (An Aldabra giant tortoise, at 250 years. And even that one is a special case, their average lifespan is 80-120 years)
This remains purely speculative rather than factual. Since we have no knowledge about aliens, we cannot assert with certainty that they possess the same or greater lifespan as any known animal.
Where I am in complete disagreement however is the elaboration that follows. That this is achieved through aggression. Now while it is possible that the intention behind your message was "aggression backed by power", given that your argument currently as it reads lacks this, *and* humanity is very lacking in power compared to any aliens that can reach our star system (a point which I'll elaborate on shortly here), I will assume for the time being that your message is just "aggression" or is "peace through aggression".
The term 'aggression' implies violence, and violence is often equated with power. Therefore, I find it difficult to grasp the opposing argument. The opposition bases their claim on the assumption that any beings capable of reaching us must be more powerful, yet this is not a fact. Even if we concede that we lack the aliens' spacefaring abilities, we would still possess the home-field advantage in numbers, tactics, and guerrilla warfare. Thus, while humanity may not match the aliens' technical prowess, we would certainly not be powerless.
While peace through deterrence can be achieved, and might even be the only way to achieve peace with others who are selfish, who only see you as a means to an end, as a goal, as an objective. Peace through deterrence can not work with aggression alone. Peace through deterrence can not work without power. While aggression could potentially amplify the fear, the effect of deterrence as a result of the presence of power, as a result of the threat of that power being used. While aggression could amplify the effect of power. Aggression can not be used to replace power. Aggression can not produce peace through deterrence at the absence of sufficient power. Aggression is nothing without power. True power projection requires power.
I concur with the notion that peace through deterrence is unsustainable without power. However, the fallacy in this argument is the assumption that humans lack the means to support our assertiveness, which is untrue. Our planet is home to billions of individuals, equipped with nuclear technology, advanced AI, and hacking capabilities. We indeed possess the power to reinforce our defense in numerous areas that Con is overlooking.
Assuming that the aliens that meet us wish to use us and our planet for their own ends. Wish to have us pay resources to them as tribute for their "protection", wish to install a few of their species on our planet as acting governors in order to properly absorb us into their galactic empire, or something else along those lines, an aggressive attitude alone will not make such a colonizing society go back on their plans. At best such a bluff might halt them for a moment and cause them to scout us, to gather more information on us in order to either confirm or deny their worries, but all that will accomplish is buy us a little more time. I'd argue not nearly enough for it to be worth the potential consequences of our aggression.(another bullet point which I will go more into)
Con, you continue to assert that "An aggressive attitude alone would not suffice." However, I must question why you presume our threats to be mere bluffs. Haven't the countless bloody conflicts endured by human nations demonstrated that our aggression is genuine? Do you truly believe that billions of humans would simply concede, "Aliens have arrived with intentions to enslave us. Well, they possess superior technology, so they must lead"? Certainly not. They would resist and defend every inch of Earth. We may debate whether we would prevail, or even on the level of the aliens' advancement. But one should never assume that humanity would passively submit to enslavement or extermination. Thus, an aggressive policy is indeed the best policy.
Ironically, aggression currently will only potentially hurt here, and won't help. If we are friendly or neutral, those who wish to subjugate us will proceed to do so. Those who wish to avoid us might change their minds and greet us with friendship instead. And those who wish to greet us in friendship will do just that. However if we are hostile. Those who wish to subjugate us will still proceed to do so.
This is extremely Naive Con, where in all have human history can you point to me where being friendly or neutral actually prevented blood thirsty leaders from attacking you? I think you should look at the policy of appeasement policy. It never works. If someone intends to conquer you, particularly due to imperial ambitions, they will not "change their minds" simply because you are friendly. In fact, for many, friendliness may make you a more appealing target.
I could delve into further counterarguments, but the essence of Con's argument can be distilled into this logical equation: If Aliens are stronger and Humanity is weaker, then aggressive policies will do more harm than good. However, this cannot be established as fact due to a lack of empirical evidence. Moreover, Con's strategy for dealing with hostile Aliens is flawed. Con suggests that being friendly and non-threatening, while showing no resolve, will deter imperialistic Aliens from conquest. History has shown this tactic to be ineffective. Furthermore, the imperialist mindset is predicated on the belief that if an adversary is weaker and demonstrates a fear of war, they become an easier target for invasion.
Conclusion: Cons argument is riddle with speculation and fallacies that can be linked to repeated historical failures of the past. While I can understand Con's concerns and I will grant that aggression is not the absolute answer. It is still far more logical to have aggressive policies to Aliens whose intentions are equally unknown to us. Con specifically states that we should try and deter Aliens that have ill-intentions with kindness to get them to leave us alone which is not only illogical but has been discredited on numerous occasions. Con has acknowledged that peace is often not achieved solely through peaceful negotiations, yet they also advocate for friendliness towards those they admit may not be persuaded by peaceful intentions alone. A hostile planet is an independent planet.
I pass the mic to Con.
Thank you Pro. I will proceed to give my direct responses first and elaborate further on the grand picture after.
The argument follows this reasoning: an assumption of good intentions
I disagree with this. Not only has my argument never assumed that our visitors are necessarily of good intention. But under both The consequences of aggression and Our motivations and goals I specified a varying number of intentions that they could have, two of which are that of Colonizers and that of Exterminators. My argument says to expect that their intentions could be anything(that is to say, to not assume anything), not to assume that their intentions are good.
In the political realm, passive responses to threats of aggression are not rewarded. Those who offer kindness in response to tyranny are perceived as weak.Aliens allowed to act hostilely without consequence will not see it as an attempt to avoid conflict and be reasonable, but as an opportunity to conquer us without resistance.Aliens, which some claim are superior to us, will likely not engage diplomatically with a planet of primitives that do not retaliate against their insults and threats.
This debate is If we we encounter Aliens, should we be hostile to them on contact? , it is not If aliens act towards us unkindly should we retaliate?
I have not suggested to respond to tyranny with kindness, to not retaliate against their insults and threats.
Even if my opponent is right that aliens were more advanced and capable of traveling light years to reach us, it wouldn't matter. We could still demonstrate our policy of self-defense on our own planet. There is no necessity to journey across the cosmos to safeguard our loved ones and homes.
If the implication here is that "We do not need to travel to the alien's home world to defend ourselves" then I agree. In most cases there's no need for us to have the capability to visit other star systems, to take the fight to them, to where their home is, in order to be able to defend ourselves. However that has never my argument.
My argument is that, if your visitors have the capability to harm us without entering our atmosphere, that unless we have the tech and resources needed to threaten them, our aggression will yield us few to none of the intended benefits of threat, intimidation and/or power projection.
Earth's independence is paramount.
I challenge this statement. Assuming I am not misunderstanding you, this implies that Earth's independence is more important than anything else. I challenge this with a question. Why is that the case?
During my Our motivations and goals section I laid out our motivations and goals, one of them was Sovereignty, which also is independence. In it I said they are in no particular order of importance, further elaborating that individual priority differs from person to person. You however claim that independence is paramount, to my understanding, the most important goal. Why is that the case?
Pure speculation alone doesn't suffice.
I object to this assessment. I believe "Pure speculation" is a misrepresentation of my stance. The basis for my conclusions is outlined My claimed facts, The deductions and An examination of power. And while I may not claim that my conclusions are not 100% irrevocably factually true. I do hope that I have put enough on the table to save my deductions from the dishonor of fitting the term "Pure speculation".
Merely reaching our galaxy doesn't reveal much about their technological capabilities. We would need to examine and understand the precise means and methods they used to achieve it.
It might not reveal everything, or even most of what we could know about the technological capabilities. The potential range of their technological advancement would still be huge and perhaps even near impossible to pinpoint I admit. However my argument is not that I know where their technological advancement is that. But that we have enough info to be able to confidently conclude that they are far ahead of us.
While we can not directly examine the precise means or methods they used before they would actually arrive (or maybe even after they arrive). We can imagine all the possibilities, or at least as many possibilities as we can reasonably imagine, in order to remove most doubt. And my claim is that all the imaginable answers we can think of lead us to the conclusion that they are far ahead of us technologically and/or in resources. I will go more into detail on this under Examining the possibilities of how they reached us.
This remains purely speculative rather than factual. Since we have no knowledge about aliens, we cannot assert with certainty that they possess the same or greater lifespan as any known animal.
Same or greater? I think you misunderstood, I am not saying their lifespan is equal or greater than any known animal. I was saying quite the opposite actually. That we have no reason to believe it to be larger than such. I was pinpointing the reasonable ceiling of their lifespan, not the ground of it.
On the contrary, in the situation where their lifespan is shorter, where for example their lifespan is comparable to our own. Then they need to cover the distance from their home world to ours in less time, furthering the gap in tech between theirs and ours, which would only support my argument. I increased their expected lifespan for your benefit, but I have no objection to you challenging that they might have a greater lifespan if you insist on it. Unless I misunderstood you in which case I need you to elaborate.
The term 'aggression' implies violence, and violence is often equated with power. Therefore, I find it difficult to grasp the opposing argument. The opposition bases their claim on the assumption that any beings capable of reaching us must be more powerful, yet this is not a fact. Even if we concede that we lack the aliens' spacefaring abilities, we would still possess the home-field advantage in numbers, tactics, and guerrilla warfare. Thus, while humanity may not match the aliens' technical prowess, we would certainly not be powerless.
In that case I wish to ask, how do we act violently? It is easy to imagine in a scenario where the spaceship simply enters our atmosphere unannounced and we shoot at it with our anti-air weapons. But what of in a situation where for example, the aliens first contact us by radio communication from outside our planet. How do we act violently? And how do we act violently in a way that shows power?
Our planet is home to billions of individuals, equipped with nuclear technology, advanced AI, and hacking capabilities. We indeed possess the power to reinforce our defense in numerous areas that Con is overlooking.
I believe this requires elaboration and backing. I can not, for example, see how nuclear technology can be useful if we can't hit a space ship in outer space with one of our nukes. And while we would indeed in most cases have greater numbers than our visitors, and we have the home-field advantage, I will address this in greater detail under 1945 Japan but worse
Con, you continue to assert that "An aggressive attitude alone would not suffice." However, I must question why you presume our threats to be mere bluffs. Haven't the countless bloody conflicts endured by human nations demonstrated that our aggression is genuine? Do you truly believe that billions of humans would simply concede
I said our threats are bluffs not because we don't have the will to carry out violence and aggression, we do have the will for it. I said our threats are bluffs because they are not actually threatening. We have no way of actually posing any danger to aliens flying outside our planet's atmosphere. The only aliens we could threaten are those who come close enough for us to harm.
They would resist and defend every inch of Earth. We may debate whether we would prevail, or even on the level of the aliens' advancement. But one should never assume that humanity would passively submit to enslavement or extermination. Thus, an aggressive policy is indeed the best policy.
Firstly, my argument never assumed that humanity would normally submit. In fact no part in my argument has anything to do with "What would humanity normally do in this situation?"
Secondly, the debate is If we we encounter Aliens, should we be hostile to them on contact? , I believe "this is how humanity would act" to be a pointless argument in this context as the primary question of the debate is not "What would humanity do?", it is "What should humanity do?".
Thirdly, submit to enslavement or extermination? The debate isn't whether or not we should submit to either of those things, its whether or not we should be hostile on first contact.
This is extremely Naive Con, where in all have human history can you point to me where being friendly or neutral actually prevented blood thirsty leaders from attacking you? I think you should look at the policy of appeasement policy. It never works. If someone intends to conquer you, particularly due to imperial ambitions, they will not "change their minds" simply because you are friendly. In fact, for many, friendliness may make you a more appealing target.Con suggests that being friendly and non-threatening, while showing no resolve, will deter imperialistic Aliens from conquest.
This is another gross misunderstanding of my stance. Under The consequences of aggression as well as some of Our motivations and goals, I had actively specified that those coming with the intention to invade us will not be deterred by a friendly or neutral attitude.
Examining the possibilities of how they reached us
Earlier you said we do not know precisely how exactly the aliens would reach us. While I do contend that this is true. I believe that we can imagine all(or almost all) the possibilities that exist and go through each of them and their implications individually.
Fuel based rocket science: The first way in which we ourselves are able to traverse space. Propulsion from the consumption of fuel. Now while the gravity of planets, moons and the sun can be used to achieve further movement without fuel consumption. Once a spacecraft leaves its star system, its movement towards the destination star system would need to be almost completely dependent on fuel consumption, assuming this was the method and tech used to reach our star system. However aliens would need to achieve velocity that no less than 295 times our fastest interstellar spacecraft. These are the ways I can imagine they can achieve this using more advanced fuel based rocket science:
- More efficient fuel consumption: The ability to achieve the same thrust using less fuel. (or using the same fuel to achieve more thrust)
- Same quality lighter spacecraft material: Building material that is sturdy enough for space travel, but lighter so that more velocity is achieved from the same thrust.
- Better fuel: Consumable material that can be used to achieve more thrust using the same amount of storage space.
- Regenerating fuel: The ability to regenerate fuel while out in space, somehow.
Electricity based rocket science: Fuel is a resource that can only be stored on a ship in finite amounts. But what if there was a way to achieve propulsion via another means, or if not that, then to at least make better use of the consumption of fuel. While solar panels allow us to gain that energy in outer space. We do not have the capability (at least with our current tech) to harness the power of the sun when outside of the solar system. So in this case as well, our usage of energy while outside our star system would be dependent on just our energy storage. Regardless, these are the ways I can imagine aliens can reach our planet using more advanced Electricity based rocket science:
- More efficient energy consumption: The ability to achieve the same thrust using less energy.
- More efficient saving of fuel: If the aliens were able to make it so that electricity based propulsion could use no fuel at all, rather than simply decrease it significantly.
- Better energy storage: The ability to store more energy in the same storage space
- Improved solar energy panels/units: The ability to somehow gain solar energy from a star or stars while outside of a star system.
Alternative sci-fi like technology: The kinds of technology that we only find in fictional stories, or in scientific theory. I do not necessarily think our visitors have this. In fact I am perfectly fine simply concluding that they're just a lot better than us at using fuel for example. However for the purposes of this exercise these are the few last alternatives I can imagine for how aliens could reach us:
- FTL travel: The ability to accomplish faster than light travel, somehow.
- Wormholes: The ability to utilize wormholes, or some similar form of teleportation technology that takes you directly from point A to point B
- Etc: Other equally fantastical methods like cannon one-shot, hyperspace and so on that I wish not to get more into.
Much as I try, I can not think of a method, or combination of methods with which Aliens can reach our star system that does not paint a story that says their tech is so much more advanced than ours. That their space flight tech is so incredibly far ahead of ours its reasonable to believe they are ahead on us in all other fields of technology as well. For example, if it were More efficient fuel consumption: , then their fuel consumption would need to be so much more efficient that ours that they'd not only be able to travel no less than 295 times the velocity of our fastest interstellar spacecraft. But they'd also need to have enough left in the tank to also decelerate from that velocity when reaching our star system. And if it is instead Regenerating fuel: somehow, then that would only be even more impressive. And if its any of the Alternative sci-fi like technology, then even yet more so.
Now, I am not saying that just because I am unable to think of 'a method in which aliens can reach our star system that does not paint the story that their tech is so much more advanced than ours' means that such a method doesn't exist. Its entirely possible that such a method exists and simply is outside my current imagination.
What I will say however is this, can you imagine for me such a scenario? Can you give me an explanation for how aliens could reach our star system, without that explanation having the consequence of conceding a large tech gap between them and us? If you can not do that, to even just story imagine it, then I only have less and less reason to believe such a thing to be possible at all.
1945 Japan but worse
Under a lot of your argument you outlined that we have billions, that we would not surrender easily or submit without a fight, that home-advantage, guerilla warfare and such would render a direct attack too costly. Minus the fact of replacing billions with millions, these are aspects that mainland Japan also had in 1945. The allied powers had concluded that a direct invasion of Japan would be incredibly costly and unpreferable, and out of their opponents in history the Japanese showed perhaps the greatest fighting spirit, including with their kamikaze strikes.
None of this meant that American superiority over Japanese air space was not a thing. home-advantage, guerilla warfare or millions of defenders did not stop the American raids over Japanese cities and the two atomic bombs. And if they would've continued without surrendering, even more would've died in a war in which they had zero hope of America accepting anything less than a surrender.
If aliens are able to lay harm upon us while staying outside our atmosphere, then the reason I am saying we are "powerless", is because we do not have the means of retaliating. Of firing back against them or of laying harm upon them after they do that to us. And while I can not 100% guarantee that our visitors have such tech. I believe the risks of pre-emptively aggressing against aliens who have such tech far outweigh whatever benefits there might be to aggressing against visitors who don't. And if our visitors have intentions of forcing us into submission then it is very likely they have brought with them military tech that can harm us from safety. I will go more in-depth into both of these points under A further examination of scenarios, benefits and consequences at my next argument.
Conclusion: Given that sadly, a good portion of this argument had been used to correct misunderstandings of my stance, I would like to end this with one final direct response.
Con specifically states that we should try and deter Aliens that have ill-intentions with kindness to get them to leave us alone
Where and when did I specifically state this?
Round 3
Forfeited
Given that my opponent has forfeited this round. While it is fully within my right to use this round to further my argument, I've decided I have decided personally not to do so.
That said, I wish to take the opportunity to apologize for my conduct during the last round. I still assert that my stance has been horribly misrepresented, and while it is normal for that to invoke anger, I take shame for acting on that anger, that my emotional outrage took part in painting my responses. I apologize to both my opponent and to the readers of this debate.
Round 4
Forfeited
Given that it was the case that my opponent was going through life struggles rather than forfeiting the debate altogether, I'll change my initial plans and forfeit this round as well. We can act as if this were instead a 3 round debate.
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet
Also sorry for the late reply, I didn't notice your comment until now
No need to apologize, shit happens. In fact some stuff came up recently that now I am dealing with.
I apologize, I am dealing with a lot of personal issues, obligations, and stress, that is why I have not participated and forfeited some rounds.
It's up to you to decide how to handle an opponent's forfeiture. You can decide to make no arguments if you wish, or you can summarize all the arguments you've made so far and try to present your case that you've made so far.
Ok I was not prepared for this. I don't know if my opponent is forfeiting the debate or if he simply ran out of time for this round.
I know its ok for me to use this round to further my arguments but I dunno, I kinda feel like skipping it would be proper, does anyone who sees this have any comments?
Thank you Casey, I appreciate it.
A fellow procrastinator, I see. I have a bad tendency of doing the exact same thing. Still, I was expecting a full forfeiture, which a lot of new users on this site end up doing. Keep up the good work of not forfeiting and I think you'll do well!
Hey, sorry for taking until the last few minutes to submit my argument. I didn't intend to procrastinate on it this much.
Yeah, I dont see how can someone think that attacking a more advanced species and hoping you wont start a war or that they wont just destroy you in return is a good idea.
*reach us
Obviously not. If aliens had technology advanced enough to teach us, they could obviously destroy us in war.
Might not be a good idea if we learn that they are much more powerful than us.
It depends on if they are immigrants or colonizers. If the former, then no and their technology would be useful for humanity to advance our species. If the ladder, then yes (but it would be pointless since humanity would lose in that civil war against alien technology).