Aliens - Are you alone?

The constant search for other forms of life goes on. The recent robotic Mars landing and forthcoming Pluto mission, opens the debate once more and it is increasingly becoming a point of discussion with more scientific elements drawing closer to the conclusion that there is every possibility that there will be found, at the very least, some external building blocks of life, if not an actual form of life.

It was not so long ago that the answer to the question of ‘is there life elsewhere’ was a closed subject, given that the condition for life to exist were deemed to be narrow. However the deep-sea volcanic fumerals, surface volcanic pools and the life that they support, contrary to expectation, substantially increased the known parameters under which life can exist. Now it is known that life can exist under some extreme conditions hot or cold so the expectation is that the evidence of life will eventually be found on a planetary body. So the initial question of the possibility of ‘life else where’ has been largely answered but the comfort zone for the scientific and philosophical religious community still remains with the disguised interpretation of life to mean ‘intelligent’ life. For them the answer to the question is there intelligent life ‘out there’ remains fortunately largely avoidable.

There is for many, still a barrier to accept that there is likely to be other intelligent life in the universe. It implies an answer to a question that is not easy to accept; that we are not alone, yet without the proof demanded by scientific process, nothing is. This is not an unusual tack given the primitive state of discussion and the social and politically philosophical implication that an acceptance of intelligent life elsewhere will generate.

The associate questions of what intelligence is, what has it, is ignored for the same comfortable reasons. Humans nearest biological links, monkeys – dolphins etc are not regarded as comparable intelligent even though they demonstrate one of the measures of intelligence, as defined by humans, self-awareness. This leave aside the ability to learn, use tools, remember etc. Humans shrink from the concept of bestowing competing or different intelligence on any other creatures for to do so will attack many of their moral assumptions, actions and the legitimacy of their standing as supreme beings. Occasionally a measure of begrudging intelligence is matched with these creatures but the inference is that fortunately it is not like us and is limited in scope, without really understanding what intelligence is for. The unenlightened stance and continuing belief in the supreme ness of human’s position is not a useful one. It may be better to at least acknowledge the high possibility of other intelligent functioning beings to be existing some where in the galaxy and become accustomed to the idea, than to be forced to accept that human are not alone.

The perennial question - Is there intelligent life else where in the universe? Will be open to doubt for some time. There is an argument that suggest that if there were intelligent life that had the ability to travel as saps are seeking to do now, then they would have visited and made themselves know to us by now. The statement is made that, as they have not done so, they do not exist, end of discussion.

This statement makes huge leaps of assumptions and places the responsibility on other life forms to make itself known for humans to judge or bestow the title ‘intelligent’, if it meets human’s definitions.

Humans can only just comprehend the technically, physiological and psychological difficulties that have to be over come to exit off world. They assume that because of these difficulties, with the distances involved, speed required and life span; all makes it impossible for anything to surmount the difficulties, this idea is assessed with current or foreseeable technologies. With this argument, this does not actually undermine the possibility of life elsewhere, it only complexes the view, so far as saps are aware, that it may not exist and if it did, it does not space travel.

If space travellers existed, (be it time travellers or otherwise) saps assume that they would be very noticeable. This seems to use the argument that such travellers would have the same sense of curiosity that saps have and could not resist the opportunity to visit other places and interact. Ignoring the physical shapes, this presupposes that they have gone down the same or similar road of technical, psychological and social development that saps have with all that entails BUT why should this be the case.

Assume for the moment that aliens do exist and have reached a stage of development that has not been hindered by geological misshapes and that they are – say a million years in advance technically to humans. I use this figure as is seem likely that saps have lost development time as the process of maturity was stopped by mass extinctions on 5 major occasions and humanoids where near wiped out once. The difference in physical, technology, social drivers and thought will be immense, then why would alien want to visit a primate species, be seen, or interact with them? If it were the case, surely a million years of advance development would provide the means of observing or interacting without being known. The desire to interact and be in some degree of actual or psychological control is a sap power trait that has had a negative effect on their own species. A superior intelligence may have reached the conclusion that such overt interaction would create unknowable problems for the ‘backward’ culture. It is rather like a modern man going back to the dawn of humanoids and seeking to interact in some way, there could be no basis for communication or understanding for either species, nor would there be for either species recognition of compatible ‘intelligence’ as the term is restrictive, it has little meaning. Saps past treatment observed in the mixing of unequal cultures is indicative of what one group does to the other with physiological, social, cultural and psychological differences being used as the measure to justify ill-treatment, support by dubious intelligence measures.

Saps comfort themselves with the stuff of dreams by making SF films that depict imaginative aliens in different humanoid guise and with good or bad attributes on display. These caricatures play out the roles emulating or illuminating the various traits of saps as if in doing so they can be readily understood, although alien and of course they all speak american english or there is a translator to hand so the alien mind-set seems to be then comprehendible. Unfortunately this leaves out huge areas of unknowable social pathological drivers, the cultural context and the very substance of their existence. This does not appear to be good bases on which to play out the 'what ifs' of other alien life and to presume how humans would react to it. Given the way saps have dealt with their own species, should they expect superior contemplation from an actual contact?

The probability is that if there were alien life ‘out there’ it would at least be at a cellular level and benign, that it would at best be humanoid in form and intelligent, at worst unrecognisable and intelligent. However any life in any form will have to be viewed with considerable caution until saps become intelligent enough to deal with the shift in their own superiority. A general acceptance that there must be other intelligent life ‘elsewhere’ even though saps have no hard proof as yet would prepare the position for the right time. So sap are far from being ready to accept the knowledge that there is intelligent life elsewhere, little hints maybe, a bit of life perhaps but indisputable evidence, not yet.
Inferior, observe but do not touch – superior, conceal be covert – of equal standing be wary.

P. 26.1.06

6th Commandment

To kill or not to kill is a question?

Many religious elements of the world have an ‘edict’ against killing. But it is not an observed total proscription. In the main religions that are of note they seem to, by default, allow killing in certain circumstances and have managed to transcribe gods (?) words into a formal diktat suitable for the everyday use for the followers of religions and yet injected into them useable flexibility of the edicts for the specifics at play in this era. (God’s on our side) Today the edict against killing that is transcribed into laws is generally held up for the protection of human life. Yet it is possibly a very narrow protection by law against individual acts but it allows companies and state to kill, as in accidental, corporate killing and state controlled acts.

Is it a natural human inclination to kill? Or is it just that humans have overtime adopted via religion and laws, a reluctance to kill as it acts against the tenet of god or is it just a convenient practice to abstain?
There may be some humans that have a ‘natural’ or learned inclination to kill, these people may have lost (or never had) self-discipline and simply act according to their own drives. It could be that some are incapable of normal or acceptable self-control, have a mental process that is wired so different that understanding or relating to others is near impossible. Others may have learned to suppress the feeling of revulsion to the extent that killing is no more than a power acts for self-gain or to engage in killings carried out at the behest of legal governance. In some cases there is also the supposed justification to kill, judicial or as a calling of gods work in retribution; as if god needs saps to carry out its deeds, is most odd.

This leads to another question, are killer made or born? If one assumes that a human born with no mental defects and is deemed to be passable as ‘normal’, that they are rather like a blank bio computer with the ability to learn, if having access to suitable influence and stimulation, then possibly a balanced human can be created. Assume also that there will usually be the natural tendency for self-preservation and that this will develop and become operational with whatever facilities are to hand to secure life. Also important is the nurture of this human, all-conditional on the basis that a peaceful environment is available. This is the usual nature vs. nurture argument and fabulous sophisticated minds like to take the navel gazing path to press their favoured view. The conclusion may be that killers are not born.

But if there is a preponderance of overt violent exposure, exerted by external surrounding or even willingly adopting self exposure via say violent computer games, then there must be a greater chance of a developed inclination to fall into violent behaviour when the opportunity allows. Without the restraint of an emotional tie there must be the disassociation between the fantasy violent act and reality. Normal adult humans may have learned the relationship difference between fiction and fantasy and may have a measure of choice they can exercise in difficult situations; this may not be possible with a dysfunctional mind.
The ability to choose or rationalise is not generally available to children. It may also be suggested that children are not good at discerning the difference between fantasy and reality until they have gained experience by explanation and association. If they are habitually inculcated with fantasy, where is the emotion link that could allow them to discern the discomfort and pain in other humans when exposed too or inflicting violence?

The balance of the civilised argument would favour that killing is not a natural act and most normal people would accept that they do not have an ability or inclination to kill. However this stance may be modified dependant on a situation, such as, if self preservation or if close relationships ties are evident and in danger, or the threat of personal retaliatory action is lifted or there is a fervent cohesive drive. Then most people might choose to kill or can be persuaded to kill. Much would depend on the emotional drive at play at the time and whether it is being acted on or overruled. If there is no choice of action in play, i.e. forced to kill or be killed, then there is within all humans a potential to be killer and in this there must be the ability to develop the inclination to accept killing in many circumstances. To do otherwise would call for the total abrogation of the need and preference to survive at the expense of something or someone else. Martyrdom is a process that is difficult to rationalise or rank in importance but it may be considered an acceptable selfless good act if done for the survival of another, yet it is probably counter to the supposed natural inclination of self preservation and might be considered the province of exceptional people.

Disregarding the drives, now there are laws and religion to inject a reluctance or hindrance upon people in the willingness to forcibly terminate others. For the sake of a civilised structure that needs to be stable, it is just as well that there is some attempt to control the aptitude to kill but I wonder how strong the developed disinclination is and is it just disguised with a thin veneer of practiced social civility.

Today there seems to be an avoidance of the issues of death, it is not for many acceptable that it is a natural consequence of life and the preference is for the preservation of life at any cost. This is manifest in the west by its ability to prolong life beyond a useful limit and a general avoidance to promulgate deliberate deaths as a topic. The adversity offered against the death penalty or euthanasia / mercy killing are issues that now resist un-emotive discussion. That there is in humans such an adversity to examine the thought of killing or consciously causing death may be caused by an innate fear of their own personal death, or is it just the way it (death) occurs that bring the pressure not to examine possible human predisposition to be a killer?

Humans have a natural life span and death is the one element of physical life that cannot be escaped. However the efforts made to avoid talking about death individually, is countered by the phenomenon that time and again humans have accepted death on a large scale, often propagated by their own actions and the regret of those deaths are soon forgotten by those unaffected by the destruction. In natural disasters there is the actual knowledge that the deaths are accidental, attributable to the natural occurrence and was largely unavoidable. This situation is part of the natural world and although there may be in some cases actions that could have been taken to mitigate deaths in knowing what the cause could be, the means to avoid them is often cost handicapped. In the case of large-scale deaths there is much distress maybe due to the numbers involved and it is difficult to comprehend the emotional magnitude caused by the shock of the scale concerned. It does seem however that it is the little individual deaths that provoke the most angst on a media stage as if it where a very personnel one, one that can be understood in all its causes and ramification. Contrary to this, deaths on a large scale seem more difficult to tackle and lack possession. It probably may have always been the case; it is easier to feel much longer for the known single death than unknown hundreds or thousands.

As a consequence, the ability to assist in the after affect of many deaths is matched by the resource availability and the scale of the disaster. Massive assistance may be provided in the immediate aftermath of an event but eventually as the limited uninvolved emotional link falls this assistance tails off. In deaths caused by inflicting war or corporate malpractice there is judicial or governance process to direct reparation. Whereas little or no help is applied to the unknown compound individual deaths that occur over a year in poor countries, deaths that also run into thousands.

To emphasis the point further, humans must eat to gain energy and want to live; in doing so it has separated the source of the energy into distinct sections of resources – animal, vegetable and mineral with the essence of life only given to one. It is assumed the this essence only applies to all biological creatures / animals – creature that are consider to be alive, yet if we accept that life is also a very elusive essence and that it is based, by humans own account, on that ability to have self movement, preferable a nervous system and have awareness, this leaves out all vegetable matter but is this not also a form of life? With the same parameter restrictions some would argue that even fish are not really alive. Does the essence of life have to have the need for a nervous system, or obvious self-motivation to be deemed to be life or alive? Can the essences of life be aware of its own existence no matter where it is or in what form just by being in our own awareness?

The underlying thread behind all this is therefore that everyone kills.
It is not entirely obvious that this the case but if you consider that that all life exist on the death of something else, then by default all humans kill either directly, indirectly or by negligence in order to survive. So if the definition of life were not so narrow and definitive therefore, for humans to survive they do kill.

In a civilised sense having some form of proscription against killing is a necessary restraint on the fragmentation of a social structure that supports a civilised culture. If it is accepted that humans are at essence natural killers, it does not mean that they have to acquiesce to the ability. The overlay of social mores helps create a divide that adds to a duality in the nature of humans. Unfortunately there are times when the only recourse to stop an action by those motivated on killing others, for their own need, is to apply similar force and if necessary kill them. It is a strength and a weakness that the humans have adopted, operating a perfunctory duel standard, they will accept killing at a time of war when large number are involve but hesitates to place a individual person in a position of death even if that person attempts to kill or actually kills others.

Most cultures would hold that life is precious but all cultures have at times deliberately overlooked the adopted dictates that help guard against taking of life. It is ignored on an individual basis, corporate and on organised state instructions as in murder, genocide, starvation, and war. So it would seem that life is only precious and to be preserved in certain circumstance. It may offend the sensitivities of humans to regards themselves as killers and hence they have to adopt actions as a constraint to avoid the desire to kill but never the less I would argue that on a much broader scale all humans do kill on a regular and consistent basis.

In view of this, it would seem acceptable that in the case of individual acts of wonton murder, when individuals do not care that the action that they take will result in the unwarranted death of others, that they themselves should therefore forgo the luxury of protected life.

Further it does seem strange to me, that at a time when a person is in a position of terminal illness in which no amount of medical assistance will give back their quality of life and in knowing this they are deprived in seeking the means to die. Currently no one can easily ‘legally’ help them or take the decision for them, (although this does take place) without the risk of state intervention or being castigated by others who consider them selves to be pro-life non-killers at any cost. Also issue relating to euthanasia and abortion are very emotive subjects but there has to be a point when the decision to cause death is allowed and taken by the main individuals concerned without the interference of state or uninvolved parties that do not have, or carry, the responsibility of maintaining the life.

How much better might it be to recognise that humans have not developed so far from their animal heritage that they still retain at least the aptitude to kill and accept death as the culmination and part of life. In doing so guard against the unthinking application of restrictive ‘pro life’ diktats that are at times fraudulent and honestly take responsibility for the taking of life in situations that calls for it. Killing is natural but to avoid it and choose not to requires more effort than a laudable proscription dictates.


P. 1.01.06

Recently this has raised the debate by M. Portillo of a question, is there a humane way to have a death penalty? He examined a number of ways and came to the conclusion that anoxia provided the most humane way! In actually fact there is no humane way to cause the death of another. How can one gauge the stress or anxiety of all the participants so that one can be absolutely sure that no one is affected by the causing of a death? There may be some relief from the accusation of an un-humane infliction of death as in the case of voluntary euthanasia but causing the deliberate death of another without the willing consent of all concerned may never be considered a humane act.

P. 11.1.08

Crime: Make it pay.

The general perception of law-abiding people is that crime pays. It would appear that from anecdotal evidence and the glorifying of crime via various media, seems to raise the fascination profile of it to such an extent that there is the perception that it, crime, is also on the increase.

For some time there has been a large number of reported incidents relating to very dodgy traders ripping innocent people off with little chance of those affected getting any recompense. These deviant traders purport to offer goods or carry out work at an extortionate cost; often not delivering, or they do sub standard work, non-essential work and extract payment sometime with a degree of menace.

In other cases spoof companies set up to trade and cheat people out of cash. Some individuals involved have been previously banned from holding ‘directorship’ or have been stopped from trading but these individual restart under another name or hide behind a non- deplume to carry on their nefarious activities and this is repeated time and again.

The police do not treat such commercial or private theft as being all that serious and it is often difficult to get the actual in action evidence of a suitable nature to take these crooks to task. Even in the happy event that some are caught the puny sentences applied is not a deterrent to stop them getting into action again as the rewards far outweigh any legitimate income that they may be able to earn. Even in the cases of petty criminals, house burglary, car theft, shop thieving, opportunity thieves etc those caught in the act, are often not dissuaded from re offending as it is seen as an acceptable hazard of the job.

White collar crime i.e. computer, corporate financial manipulation, stock market, company / commercial crime is also treated leniently and a lethargic attitude is displayed by the police in pursuing it, but physical attacks on a train, plane, bank robbery, or state asset generally has a more active assault applied to finding the culprits and the eventual instigation of proceeding upon it.

While this relaxed approach is the case it will always be profitable to be a crook providing that the crime is aimed at the individual or corporate and not at the instruments of state.

A solution would be to treat these people in the same way as is now possible with drug dealers and sequestrate all their direct and indirect assets and make them prove it was earned honestly, failing which, it is all confiscated from them.

It should also be possible to turn the legal situation around; in such cases instead of the state having to prove their guilt make them, the prosecuted, prove their innocence. In addition once being found guilty they should have a permanent tag physically inserted into their body that is zone limited, i.e. they are restricted to a given area, not allowed to leave unless permitted.

There may be some merit in treating first time thieve with some leniency but with corrupt traders and habitual crooks, those with proven intent or a record, there should be no easing of a sentence and the balance of probability should always be on them being guilty.

The police would of course argue that they do take all crime seriously however it is evident that this is not the case as the actual cost of pursing a crime is taken into account and is measure by the likelihood of getting a good enough conviction, hence many are quietly dropped. Despite the benefits of investigative journalism exposing some of the persistent activities of rough traders etc, there is little that is done to diminish the crooked activities.

That fact is that we are not hitting these crooks hard enough, hard enough to make it hurt them and we should be able control their action, maybe also dissuade others from taking a crooked path to riches.


P. 6.1.06