Typhon Pact..Do tell?

[Sci]

Earth provides examples of cultures that reacted calmly to the unexpected arrival of aliens. Native Americans, for example, did not freak and run for the hills when the first Europeans arrived.

Although they would've been better off if they had. It might've slowed the spread of the European diseases that killed off most of the indigenous population of the Americas.


Of course there are humans who would react to alien contact with panic or violence or sinister motives, but there are also humans who would react with reason and hope and curiosity and a sensible but not excessive degree of caution. The only valid generalization you can make about human nature is that it rules nothing out. A species that includes everything from Hitler to Gandhi cannot possibly be said to have a single uniform nature.

Exactly.

Personally, I find the whole, "I wouldn't contact us if I was the leader of an alien species because we're so screwed up" argument, as well as the "You shouldn't interfere with a primitive culture by contacting it" argument, kind of ironic, considering that the entire premise of Star Trek is that it took contact with extra-terrestrial life to energize humanity to change its cultures and unify into a peaceful, world-wide, egalitarian, constitutional liberal democracy.

 

[justcorbly]

Although they would've been better off if they had. It might've slowed the spread of the European diseases that killed off most of the indigenous population of the Americas.

Yeah, I thought about that. The most problematic thing about contact with aliens might have nothing at all to do with technology.

 

[justcorbly]

... the entire premise of Star Trek is that it took contact with extra-terrestrial life to energize humanity to change its cultures and unify into a peaceful, world-wide, egalitarian, constitutional liberal democracy.

And like I said earlier, we Earthlings seems to be the only species for whom a "peaceful, world-wide, egalitarian, constitutional liberal democracy" was a prerequisite for warp travel. The Federation keeps running into all kinds of feisty species zipping about at warp speed who might have a global government back home, but who certainly aren't peaceful, egalitarian, liberal or democratic. (See, for example, the Hirogen.)

 

[Sci]

... the entire premise of Star Trek is that it took contact with extra-terrestrial life to energize humanity to change its cultures and unify into a peaceful, world-wide, egalitarian, constitutional liberal democracy.

And like I said earlier, we Earthlings seems to be the only species for whom a "peaceful, world-wide, egalitarian, constitutional liberal democracy" was a prerequisite for warp travel.

Not really. Humans weren't prevented from using warp technology or traveling the stars in the years prior to United Earth's final unification of the planet in 2150 (established in TNG's "Attached"). We know for a fact that an organization called the Earth Cargo Authority--possibly a sort of futuristic Merchant Marines?--had numerous civilian ships making cargo runs throughout what later become the Federation core worlds for decades prior to the launch of the NX-01 in 2151. And we also know that Earth ships like the S.S. Valiant or probes like Friendship One were being launched within only a few years of First Contact.

So far as I know, a unified, planetary, egalitarian, constitutional liberal democracy is only a requirement for Federation Membership, not for possession of warp drive -- or, for that matter, the initiation of contact from the UFP, which seems to be based on the assumption that a world that has developed warp drive will need to be contacted, if only because it would become impossible to postpone at that point.

 

[Christopher]

Although they would've been better off if they had. It might've slowed the spread of the European diseases that killed off most of the indigenous population of the Americas.

Yeah, I thought about that. The most problematic thing about contact with aliens might have nothing at all to do with technology.

Well, infection by alien diseases is unlikely, since aliens would have different genetics (meaning viruses couldn't get a foothold on us) and probably different biochemistry (meaning bacteria couldn't subsist on our flesh and might find it toxic). If they were similar enough biochemically, their microbes might eventually adapt into a form that could harm us, but it could take generations. The main risks would be from toxic or allergic reactions to their alien biochemistry; if it were too incompatible, they could potentially contaminate our water supply if they lived among us for long enough. (For instance, there could be life out there that uses arsenic instead of phosphorus in its DNA equivalent; the two are very similar chemically.) Though presumably any experienced starfaring race would be familiar with these hazards and prepared to minimize them. After all, if they were toxic to us, we (and our biosphere) would be toxic to them.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It is logically inconsistent to be willing to ascribe only negative traits to the entire species whilst withholding positive traits from the entire species when both positive and negative traits appear in roughly equal numbers.

But said negative traits are much more dangerous. So I think it logical to give them more weight, since they can do more damage.

the entire premise of Star Trek is that it took contact with extra-terrestrial life to energize humanity to change its cultures and unify into a peaceful, world-wide, egalitarian, constitutional liberal democracy.

Eventually. That took decades to occur, though, and even then it was in the wake of World War III. I'm sure there was quite a bit of panic along the way.

Earth provides examples of cultures that reacted calmly to the unexpected arrival of aliens. Native Americans, for example, did not freak and run for the hills when the first Europeans arrived.

Two things:

1) Those Europeans were still human beings, not actual aliens
2) That was hundreds of years ago. Humanity is different now. The Indians may have reacted calmly, but I doubt we would. Again, I refer you to WOTW.

 

[Sci]

It is logically inconsistent to be willing to ascribe only negative traits to the entire species whilst withholding positive traits from the entire species when both positive and negative traits appear in roughly equal numbers.

But said negative traits are much more dangerous. So I think it logical to give them more weight, since they can do more damage.

And said positive traits have the potential to do an equal amount of good, if not more.

This is basically a glass-half-empty-or-half-full argument. I would contend that it's irrational to place greater priority on negative information than positive information in evaluating something, and far more rational to place greater priority on positive information.

the entire premise of Star Trek is that it took contact with extra-terrestrial life to energize humanity to change its cultures and unify into a peaceful, world-wide, egalitarian, constitutional liberal democracy.

Eventually. That took decades to occur, though, and even then it was in the wake of World War III. I'm sure there was quite a bit of panic along the way.

Sure. But the point remains: It was the demonstrated willingness of alien cultures to reach out to Earth's cultures that prompted them to unify and achieve peace, equality, and liberty. Had aliens continued to refuse contact, or had contact only been made with non-peaceful aliens, there is every possibility that Earth would not have unified or would not have unified into an egalitarian democracy. It was the willingness of peaceful, egalitarian cultures to mix with other cultures that prompted that other culture to improve itself.

Earth provides examples of cultures that reacted calmly to the unexpected arrival of aliens. Native Americans, for example, did not freak and run for the hills when the first Europeans arrived.

Two things:

1) Those Europeans were still human beings, not actual aliens
2) That was hundreds of years ago. Humanity is different now. The Indians may have reacted calmly, but I doubt we would. Again, I refer you to WOTW.

The War of the Worlds broadcast occurred in the context of a culture that was already tense and primed for conflict on the eve of World War II, after having been rocked by the Great Depression less than ten years earlier, and in which the idea of a fictional newsbroadcast was widely unfamiliar because no such form had been used before. Had the broadcast occurred in the 1960s, for instance, it is unlikely that it would have generated such fear.

Furthermore, it's important to keep in mind that the so-called panic was greatly exaggerated by newspapers at the time. It's not like the National Guard was called out and shot anyone.

 

[Christopher]

Two things:

1) Those Europeans were still human beings, not actual aliens
2) That was hundreds of years ago. Humanity is different now. The Indians may have reacted calmly, but I doubt we would. Again, I refer you to WOTW.

Those two things cancel each other out. Hundreds of years ago, humans reacted to humans of different races and cultures as if they were aliens. Just a century or so ago, there was serious (if profoundly racist) debate among Europeans as to whether nonwhites were even human at all.

Whereas these days, we're so primed by the mass media to be accustomed to the idea of aliens that it makes no sense to claim that anyone would have trouble accepting the fact of their existence.

People don't automatically panic when faced with strangeness. When they do, it's because they perceive an imminent or obvious threat, or (as in the WotW case) because they're already predisposed to fear because of prior circumstances. If aliens had shown up, say, at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, or if they'd landed in New York on Sept. 12, 2001, then things would probably have gone pretty badly. But humans possess as much curiosity as fear. Both are survival traits, but in different contexts. It's not our fear that enabled humanity to spread across the planet and develop advanced new technologies. If fear were all that motivated us, we'd still be naked apes running around on the savannah and hiding under trees. It's in our nature to feel drawn to the new and unusual, to look at it not only as a potential threat but as a potential opportunity. As a rule, humans react to novelty with caution, but if no obvious threat emerges, our curiosity makes us want to learn more, to approach and examine the novelty and even embrace it. There are as many tales of first contacts between cultures being friendly and excited and celebratory as there are of them being hostile or suspicious.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The War of the Worlds broadcast occurred in the context of a culture that was already tense and primed for conflict on the eve of World War II

And *we* are similarly tense and conflict-ridden. Just for different reasons. Terrorism, for example.

 

[Sci]

The War of the Worlds broadcast occurred in the context of a culture that was already tense and primed for conflict on the eve of World War II

And *we* are similarly tense and conflict-ridden. Just for different reasons. Terrorism, for example.

I'm aware of no credible fear amongst any segment of the population that a planetary shooting war is about to emerge amongst the world's major nation-states. The greatest fear that I'm aware of is purely economic in nature.

That's not to say that many people don't live in fear of local wars. I certainly shouldn't want to live in Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Iran, Chechnya, Afghanistan, or Pakistan. But to equate any of the conflicts facing the world today with the sheer scale of the conflict that everyone knew was boiling on the eve of World War II is an act of profound and absurd hyperbole.

 

[BrotherBenny]

For an in-universe explanation, I suspect that when Articles of the Federation were being drawn up, it was decided that because Vulcans only came to us once they detected our warp drive being used, that should be the benchmark. After all, the Vulcans supposedly kept the Klingons away since they were only four days away. What would have happened if a Klingon ship was passing when Cochrane made his warp flight (sans the Big-E)?

 

[Sci]

For an in-universe explanation, I suspect that when Articles of the Federation were being drawn up, it was decided that because Vulcans only came to us once they detected our warp drive being used, that should be the benchmark.

Eh, I dunno. I doubt that the contact of foreign worlds would be a matter that would come under Constitutional guidance. More likely that's the sort of matter where the legal process would be decided according to legislation from the Federation Council, especially since that's the sorta thing where circumstances might change.

For instance, if there's a culture that has already unified into a planetary democracy, has no warp technology but does have a history of peaceful and egalitarian trade, and inhabits a world with a large dilithium supply, the Federation might have a legitimate reason to contact that world to see about trading for dilithium, especially during times of crisis such as the lead-up to the Federation-Klingon border conflicts of the 2260s or the Dominion War.

It's also important to keep in mind the distinction between Federation law and Starfleet General Orders. The Prime Directive is General Order Number One, and it's designed to regulate Starfleet officers' behavior in lieu of contact with Command and the government. But the PD doesn't mean that, for instance, the President can't order a starship to contact a pre-warp civilization (as in the example above).

After all, the Vulcans supposedly kept the Klingons away since they were only four days away. What would have happened if a Klingon ship was passing when Cochrane made his warp flight (sans the Big-E)?

Are we sure that the Vulcans kept the Klingons away, per se? I mean, even if we accept the idea that Qo'noS was always only four days away -- which Star Charts asserts only happened because of temporary and unreliable "subspace highways" that sometimes form, accelerating the relative velocity of a given warp factor level -- that doesn't mean that the Vulcans must have been protecting Earth. Space is big, after all -- there's 360 degrees of it along three axes! It's not like there has to be any particular reason for the Klingons not to have reached even a nearby world if they've been concentrating their expansion efforts in another direction.

 

[Christopher]

Are we sure that the Vulcans kept the Klingons away, per se? I mean, even if we accept the idea that Qo'noS was always only four days away -- which Star Charts asserts only happened because of temporary and unreliable "subspace highways" that sometimes form, accelerating the relative velocity of a given warp factor level -- that doesn't mean that the Vulcans must have been protecting Earth. Space is big, after all -- there's 360 degrees of it along three axes! It's not like there has to be any particular reason for the Klingons not to have reached even a nearby world if they've been concentrating their expansion efforts in another direction.

Right. I think people overreact to the whole "four days away" thing. I mean, the United States is only hours away from China or Iran by military aircraft, only about half a day away (at minimum) by commercial air. Proximity doesn't automatically equal war or conquest. As you say, space is big and 3-dimensional, and there are a lot of directions to go in.

 

[BrotherBenny]

Are we sure that the Vulcans kept the Klingons away, per se? I mean, even if we accept the idea that Qo'noS was always only four days away -- which Star Charts asserts only happened because of temporary and unreliable "subspace highways" that sometimes form, accelerating the relative velocity of a given warp factor level -- that doesn't mean that the Vulcans must have been protecting Earth. Space is big, after all -- there's 360 degrees of it along three axes! It's not like there has to be any particular reason for the Klingons not to have reached even a nearby world if they've been concentrating their expansion efforts in another direction.

Right. I think people overreact to the whole "four days away" thing. I mean, the United States is only hours away from China or Iran by military aircraft, only about half a day away (at minimum) by commercial air. Proximity doesn't automatically equal war or conquest. As you say, space is big and 3-dimensional, and there are a lot of directions to go in.

Space may be big, but even in the 22nd century, everything seems to be clustered relatively close together, even at low-mid warp. I still say the Vulcans probably would have an agreement in place with the Klingons to ignore their sphere so long as the Vulcans didn't go near Klingon space. Then of course Earth blunders into the mix and the Klingons are everywhere.

 

[Trent Roman]

It is logically inconsistent to be willing to ascribe only negative traits to the entire species whilst withholding positive traits from the entire species when both positive and negative traits appear in roughly equal numbers.

Roughly equal numbers? I daresay that's a matter of perspective. My impression is that the negative traits are disproportionate to the positive ones, both quantitatively and in terms of actual impact.

No other technological advances were ever postponed because someone thought we lacked the maturity to deal with it. Nor should they have been.

If someone had postponed a technological innovation because they felt others were unsuited to dealing with it, how would you know about it? For all we know, many breakthroughs might have been concealed by their individual inventors (invention in a corporate environment being an entirely different beast) for fear of what might be come from dissemination. And as for 'should'--I would have been quite happy if somebody had sabotaged the Manhattan Project and set them back a few years.

Personally, I find the whole, "I wouldn't contact us if I was the leader of an alien species because we're so screwed up" argument, as well as the "You shouldn't interfere with a primitive culture by contacting it" argument, kind of ironic, considering that the entire premise of Star Trek is that it took contact with extra-terrestrial life to energize humanity to change its cultures and unify into a peaceful, world-wide, egalitarian, constitutional liberal democracy.

That, or Cochrane shoots the Vulcans and humanity goes on to found an oppressive interstellar empire.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The War of the Worlds broadcast occurred in the context of a culture that was already tense and primed for conflict on the eve of World War II

And *we* are similarly tense and conflict-ridden. Just for different reasons. Terrorism, for example.

I'm aware of no credible fear amongst any segment of the population that a planetary shooting war is about to emerge amongst the world's major nation-states.

There is plenty of fear about al Qaeda. That may not, in and of itself, be a "planetary shooting war", but it's the next thing to one.

But to equate any of the conflicts facing the world today with the sheer scale of the conflict that everyone knew was boiling on the eve of World War II is an act of profound and absurd hyperbole.

If it helps prevent any further bloodshed, hyperbole can be useful.

For example, it's long been "assumed" that a World War III would be a world-ending nuclear conflict that would completely wipe out all life on Earth. I don't know how realistic that assumption is, and quite frankly, I don't care. Because the more paranoid we are about what such a war *might* do, the less likely it will be that it would actually happen.

 

[Sci]

It is logically inconsistent to be willing to ascribe only negative traits to the entire species whilst withholding positive traits from the entire species when both positive and negative traits appear in roughly equal numbers.

Roughly equal numbers? I daresay that's a matter of perspective. My impression is that the negative traits are disproportionate to the positive ones, both quantitatively and in terms of actual impact.

Hm. Really? You can seriously say that when you live in a liberal democracy with peaceful trading relationships with numerous other societies? Tell me, have you ever gone to a hospital? Received or seen a loved one receive advanced medical care? I know that you've been the beneficiary of important technological developments such as telecommunications, since that's how we're speaking. Ever been the beneficiary of a charity? Needed help feeding yourself?

For every story about human depravity, there are numerous other stories about human generosity and affection. For every war fought, there are other wars averted. For every cruelty, there's decency. Only someone with an irrationally melancholic temperament can't see that.

And, frankly, I'm surprised. I would expect a Star Trek fan to know the importance of recognizing and encouraging the positive attributes of humanity over the negative. You think we'll ever achieve the utopian Earth of Trek if we just write off humanity as mostly bad?

Personally, I find the whole, "I wouldn't contact us if I was the leader of an alien species because we're so screwed up" argument, as well as the "You shouldn't interfere with a primitive culture by contacting it" argument, kind of ironic, considering that the entire premise of Star Trek is that it took contact with extra-terrestrial life to energize humanity to change its cultures and unify into a peaceful, world-wide, egalitarian, constitutional liberal democracy.

That, or Cochrane shoots the Vulcans and humanity goes on to found an oppressive interstellar empire.

And yet even with the Mirror Universe, it took contact with a peaceful, benevolent foreign culture -- the Federation -- to motivate that oppressive empire to begin to reform itself.

And *we* are similarly tense and conflict-ridden. Just for different reasons. Terrorism, for example.

I'm aware of no credible fear amongst any segment of the population that a planetary shooting war is about to emerge amongst the world's major nation-states.

There is plenty of fear about al Qaeda. That may not, in and of itself, be a "planetary shooting war", but it's the next thing to one.

I don't know what world you live in, but in the one I live in, people's fear of al Qaeda, while present, is in no way proportional to the fear they had of Nazi Germany. How could it be, when al Qaeda has never and will never be able to achieve that kind of a death toll?

But to equate any of the conflicts facing the world today with the sheer scale of the conflict that everyone knew was boiling on the eve of World War II is an act of profound and absurd hyperbole.

If it helps prevent any further bloodshed, hyperbole can be useful.

The relative utility of hyperbole is utterly unrelated to whether or not it is a realistic -- or, for that matter, widely-shared -- fear. You are changing the topic.

 

[captcalhoun]

And as for 'should'--I would have been quite happy if somebody had sabotaged the Manhattan Project and set them back a few years.

i think you might have a different view if your grandfather had died in the invasion of Japan in 1945, along with thousands of other American troops and millions of Japanese military and civilian personnel.

 

[Sci]

And as for 'should'--I would have been quite happy if somebody had sabotaged the Manhattan Project and set them back a few years.

i think you might have a different view if your grandfather had died in the invasion of Japan in 1945, along with thousands of other American troops and millions of Japanese military and civilian personnel.

Or if more Japanese civilians had died during a subsequent invasion.

 

[justcorbly]

...Humans weren't prevented from using warp technology or traveling the stars in the years prior to United Earth's final unification of the planet

I wasn't thinking so much that humans were prohibited from space flight so much as I was the notion that a culture's ability to development and sustain warp drive requires a peaceful global government.