GENIUS FORUMS

Cory Duchesne wrote: But did he live that much different from the animals? Animals live in a sustainable way too, they dont overpopulate, they don't become addicted to drugs, kill themselves,

How do you know animals don't commit suicide? The easiest way for an animal to commit suicide is to just not use any defense mechanisms when a predator comes around. How would we know?

Cory Duchesne wrote:I agree that native man lived more wisely than modern man.

Aye.

But did he live that much different from the animals? Animals live in a sustainable way too, they dont overpopulate, they don't become addicted to drugs, kill themselves, tortue each other, etc.

I think he did, just differently enough. No animal is spiritual; Native man was very spiritual. Animals have limited consciousness, self-awareness; Native man was as conscious as you or I.

But I stand by what I said earlier - -- modern man is more conscious of truth, he is closer to consciousness of truth.

Perhaps.

To me, it's like comparing the things modern man does to fight boredom---adventure---with what the Natives did; except, it doesn't work because they had no such thing---their very lives were adventures.

So, as far as I'm concerned, the Natives provide the best example that I can find of a working human system---in my opinion, they lived Truth.

His problem is that he's stuck in the middle. He's used his more advanced intellect to enslave himself to his more primitive emotions

Probably. Not a bad way to put it.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: How do you know animals don't commit suicide?

There's no evidence in biological history of an animal intentionally ending its own life. Plus, it would need an awareness of mortality for that---only humans have such an awareness.

That lemming business is a myth---no animal except humans consciously arrange their own deaths---and the only other curious case I've come across was a story about a scorpion (told by an old guy I knew who was in Sicily during WWII); his platoon buddies caught one and put it in a can, with a few little airholes. Later that day, they came back and checked on it, and it was dead.

Its own stinger had impaled its back---giving the impression that it stung itself; as the old guy told me, "It musta killed itself, maybe because it couldn't find a way out..."

An interesting theory, but unlikely (for starters, how would it know there was no way out?---a fly will bounce off a glass window all day long and never get wise to the futility); insects are tiny robots, automatons, and so when they can't do something, they simply keep trying. An ant will try to drag the same dead insect for hours and hours, even though it's too heavy and it's not moving, only shifting or turning slightly; it will continue until one of two things happen: another ant follows a chemical trail to help it out, or something scares the ant off.

Anyway, it was curious...the only thing I could think of was that it (the scorpion) had tried climbing up the can, moved its stinger up for balance, and fell back at that moment. Simply falling on it would not result in what the old guy saw---it needs a bit of force (other than its own weight) to break through its own exoskeleton.

The easiest way for an animal to commit suicide is to just not use any defense mechanisms when a predator comes around. How would we know?

We know because animals follow mostly predictable habits.

How do we know the world is really round? Think about it---ever been up there? Ever fly around the world? I haven't done either, but I trust the facts I've seen and recognize the scientific methodology used to arrive at those facts.

How do we know that when we're not watching squirrels in a pine forest, they actually dance around and sing?

Um, because we're adults and live in a real world...

For what reason would an animal kill itself? First, it would need to know what "death" is, which most animals seem to sense in different ways, and, second, what "its death" is...which they just don't. Third, it would need motivation---for a primal creature, doing everything possible in order to survive, the only reason an animal would "not use" any of its defense mechanisms would be if it were too weak, sick, or diseased. Incapable, not unwilling. It makes no sense for a natural creature to not adhere to its nature and survive by all means necessary, anymore than it would make sense for an animal to choose not to breed if it and its mate were in the mood, and they had enough resources and a den or whatever.

What motivation is there for a barely conscious critter---if it were possible---to turn on its "prime necessity," to stay alive?

Animals do have strange senses about things---elephants, for example, knowing a "burial site" of other dead elephants. This does not indicate (aside from the good memories they have) awareness of anything but "others' death," and every creature has some awareness of that.

Dogs, for example, are known to have basic emotions, and some have been observed giving up, depressed, and simply dying. That's tempting, but no wild dog has ever done that---if it did, it would die and not breed, ruling out the potential for more of those "traits" in future generations...

At any rate, consciousness of mortality is like symbolic and written language---not a level of consciousness humans and animals share.

Nordicvs wrote:So, as far as I'm concerned, the Natives provide the best example that I can find of a working human system---in my opinion, they lived Truth.

Man, this Noble Savagething just doesn't go away, does it?

N wrote:

What's necessary about a camera on a cell phone---what's necessary about a cell phone at all? (Like I said, ancient man "drove his intellect only as far as it needed it to go." And he made wiser choices.)

To me, you answer your own question with this:

Ancient man invented only that which he needed to live---he put his extra time into his art, music and children,…

Or, do you see a disconnect between ancient man and what you consider to be the unwisdom of his modern counterpart?

[Edit: emphasis.]

.

Hodges wrote:

Man, this Noble Savage thing just doesn't go away, does it?

Oh, well since Ilana Mercer says so!

Dhodges, are you serious?

Of course there are going to be people who exaggerate and over simplify in order to justify there narcissistic ambitions, Ilana Mercer is no exception.

http://www.ilanamercer.com/pictures_1.htm

Well, at least she isn’t vain, eh?

Sorry Dave, I can’t just swallow an ideology cause Ilana Mercer said so.

There’s two sides to every story – and often one side is more reasonable than the other.

Here’s a more respectful and whole-hearted take:

IV. Ecological Aspects of Controlled Forest Burning
The term "controlled burning" is used advisedly here, considering the lack of specific information in the early accounts about how the Indians actually managed the fires they set, although Martin [52] cited one account of Indians uprooting the grass around the circumference of an area they intended to burn in order to prevent the fire from running back. Martin stated that "all other early references to Indian burning are unsubstantial" (i.e., unspecific), in making the point that the Indians were not the "irresponsible incendiaries" that some early colonists [20] and some historians [54] claimed them to be. Indeed, it is likely that in their thousands of years of experience with fire the Indians would have learned as much as (if not more than) we know today about how meteorological, vegetational, and topographical factors interact to control the course of a fire [93].
If the forest fires were set in November or April, as stated in nearly all the early accounts, the soil would have been moist, since these months typically have increased precipitation in the Northeast [69]. Furthermore, during these months very little or no water is being withdrawn from the soil by transpiring vegetation. Thus, a fire would have consumed only the dry grass and some or most of the dry leaves. Intense fires which destroy the organic soil layer or reach the tree crowns would not normally have occurred at these times of year.
Bodies of water such as streams, swamps, lakes, and rivers would have stopped a fire. Rocky ridges or hilltops, where grass and leaves would have been sparse, would also probably have stopped most fires in November or April. For these reasons, most fires probably would have been limited by natural factors to relatively small areas between streams and ridges. If the Indians used methods such as the one described by Martin, above, the areas burned could have been even smaller.
There has been some objection to the general assumption that the Indians' burning in the Northeast was of wide extent [66, 70], although Raup [66] did not consider the evidence of the early accounts cited by Bromley [11] and Day [24], and Russell [70] only attempted to call their validity into question. Neither writer produced a coherent theory as to how the pre-settlement landscape could have appeared as described without the agency of fire, particularly the extensive occurrence of grasslands and fire-resistant nut trees. The following parts of this section will indicate ways in which periodic burning of the forest would have benefited the Indians by shifting the species composition towards more food-producing plants and increasing their productivities at the same time. As will be shown, the benefits would have considerably outweighed the liabilities, thereby giving the Indians significant motivation to periodically burn the forests near their settlements.

to read the whole from the begining, click here:
Indian Agroforestry

Furthermore, people who have an unsophisticated understanding of agroforestry, (e.g. some particular colonists way back when - - not to mention the likes of Ilana) are going to come up with arrogant and ignorant interpretations of the subjects they think they are accuratley observing. People wear filters and interpret scenes according to those filters.

I'm not saying the natives were perfect -- but I think they lived in a far more reasonable way than 'civilized man'.

It's been proven that natives occupied the same grounds for 1000's of years without populations running rampant and resources radically diminishing. Whereas, modern man destroys a forest of redwoods in less than 100.

Cory Duchesne wrote:I'm not saying the natives were perfect -- but I think they lived in a far more reasonable way than 'civilized man'.

...for some definition of "reasonable" that includes cannibalism, human sacrifice, etc.? Are you thinking of all native peoples everywhere, or are thinking of some particular groups and not others?

It's been proven that natives occupied the same grounds for 1000's of years without populations running rampant and resources radically diminishing.

In some places, perhaps; in others, no. That has as much to do with the local environment as it does with the particular culture.

Jared Diamond gives some good examples in Collapse - some ancient societies suceeded, and others failed. It had as much to do with the resilience of the environment they were in, as their attitude toward exploiting it. Some environments are much more fragile than others.

Cory Duchesne wrote: The following parts of this section will indicate ways in which periodic burning of the forest would have benefited the Indians by shifting the species composition towards more food-producing plants and increasing their productivities at the same time. As will be shown, the benefits would have considerably outweighed the liabilities, thereby giving the Indians significant motivation to periodically burn the forests near their settlements.

Are you really sure that you want to defend burning down forests as an example of how natives were more in tune with nature, or were wiser, or less ecologically destructive, or something, than modern man?

Does the idea "burning down forests is bad" really need defending? I'm kind of boggling over here.

DHodges wrote:Are you really sure that you want to defend burning down forests as an example of how natives were more in tune with nature, or were wiser, or less ecologically destructive, or something, than modern man?

Does the idea "burning down forests is bad" really need defending? I'm kind of boggling over here.

Controlled burns actually decrease the liklihood of forest fires running out of control by clearing up debris and stimulating new growth.

Dhodges

Does the idea "burning down forests is bad" really need defending? I'm kind of boggling over here.

If you read my post before last more carefully and follow the link, you might not be so boggled.

For instance, just consider this introduction:

Early descriptions of the pre-settlement landscape in the northeastern United States are briefly reviewed as well as accounts of the Indians' use of fire in maintaining the landscape. The modern fire ecology literature is analyzed to show that periodic low-intensity fires would have maintained high levels of vegetable and animal food production: vegetable food production for humans and wildlife would have been 20-100% greater than in unburned areas and large mammal and bird production would have been 100-400% greater. Implications for the development of modern agroforestry practices in the Northeast are discussed.

Okay, I give up. You win.

Everyone should go burn down a forest right now.

Periodic burning is not necessarily a good thing. It might be good for food production, but it's not normally good for species diversity.

Aboriginals have been burning the land here in Australia for thousands of years to stimulate an easy supply of food (green shoots -> more kangaroos). This has led to a vast diminishing in the extent of the rainforests, and the extinction of many plants and animals.

Any person who is dependent on the land for his daily living is forced to be in-tune with it to some degree. In the same sense that a slave (or a dog) must be in tune with his master if he is to avoid the master's wrath. This is not the same as spiritual wisdom.

Spiritual wisdom is accompanied by foresight - a preparing for the future. The Australian aboriginals did nothing to prepare themselves for an invasion of foreigners. Just as we, the human race, are doing little to prepare ourselves for a similar invasion.

Kevin Solway wrote:Periodic burning is not necessarily a good thing. It might be good for food production, but it's not normally good for species diversity.

Aboriginals have been burning the land here in Australia for thousands of years to stimulate an easy supply of food (green shoots -> more kangaroos). This has led to a vast diminishing in the extent of the rain forests, and the extinction of many plants and animals.

Any person who is dependent on the land for his daily living is forced to be in-tune with it to some degree. In the same sense that a slave (or a dog) must be in tune with his master if he is to avoid the master's wrath. This is not the same as spiritual wisdom.

Yes, and that is what I have been for the most part saying on this thread - - that aboriginals/natives are more in harmony with nature only for the same reason animals are - -it isn't really an act of great consciousness, but relatively minimal consciousness. However, you put it better than I. And I did say that they were not by no means in perfect harmony with nature, but much more so than modern man.

You can attribute forest destruction and species extinction to natives - - - however - - - it is so much more minimal and so much more understandable compared to the quantity and quality of rain forest destruction and species extinction demonstrated by modern man. How many acres and species have been destroyed for peoples happy meals and big macs?

how many acres have been paved over to make room for 'industrial parks' and shopping malls?

I think a bit of species extinction and destruction may be necessary - - you just have to put two mentalities on a scale. Which one weights more? Modern man is a ton of pressure on the environment compared to the natives who are like a small ounce.

Modern man just seems so much more pathetic.

Kevin: Spiritual wisdom is accompanied by foresight - a preparing for the future. The Australian aboriginals did nothing to prepare themselves for an invasion of foreigners. Just as we, the human race, are doing little to prepare ourselves for a similar invasion.

Well, It's hard not to be charmed by a fellow who speaks with great stark wisdom and yet makes allusions to alien invasions from outer space.

You say we are doing nothing to prepare ourselves for an invasion, and I agree we're not doing much.

But SETI is perhaps the baby learning to walk.

What are your thoughts on the SETI organization, Solway? (or anyone)

A 'promising/foreboding' tidbit:

About 10% of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy are Sun-like, and there are about a thousand such stars within 100 light-years of the Sun. These stars would be useful primary targets for interstellar listening.

Well, SETI is a nice, optimistic little venture, and I like the idea for various reasons, but as for "invasion" and SETI - that sounds about as effective as expecting my budgeriars to warn me if there is a burglar.

Although it is possible that invaders from outer space could come to do bad things, it seems to make more sense that if a species is advanced enough for interplanetary travel this far away, they would also be intelligent enough to recognize the value of benevolence. Of course that leaves a whole variety of possibilities on what an advanced species might consider benevolent to do with humans in the cosmic scheme of things (and the song "We'll Make Great Pets" comes to mind) - perhaps even worthy of its own thread - I think that the more relevant invaders that we shorld concern ourselves with are wayward asteroids.

A huge asteroid caused the last big ice age, and killed the dinosaurs, and we currently not only do not have any defense set up against such a thing (although someone must have thought about it some, as there is a restriction that no atomic weapons are to be detonated in space), we also barely monitor space for the possibility of a large asteroid with a trajectory that could seriously disrupt Earth. That's the kind of invader we should be on a lookout for.

elizabeth wrote,

Although it is possible that invaders from outer space could come to do bad things, it seems to make more sense that if a species is advanced enough for interplanetary travel this far away, they would also be intelligent enough to recognize the value of benevolence.

yes, that's what I always thought. Whether ir not an increase in intelligence is an increase in ethics as universal principle, I cant be sure.

And then there is my 'all too human' conception of ethics

Cory Duchesne wrote:Modern man just seems so much more pathetic.

Not to me he doesn't. After hundreds of thousands of years the Australian aborigines never developed any science, surgeries, hospitals, space travel, or even writing of any note.

They were essentially living like wild animals - even more so than we are today, which is saying a lot.

More than that, the aboriginal "spiriitual" culture was so weak that as soon as it was confronted with modern culture from the West it immediately crumbled and aborigines everywhere reverted to dependence on alcohol, glue and petrol sniffing, and domestic violence for sustenance.

A genuine spiritual culture doesn't crumble so easily.

elizabeth wrote:it seems to make more sense that if a species is advanced enough for interplanetary travel this far away, they would also be intelligent enough to recognize the value of benevolence.

The human race is pretty much advanced enough for interplanetary travel, and yet we aren't intelligent enough to recognize the value of benevolence. We are a race of unconscious half-dead animals and insane maniacs. If alien species are anything like us then we have got serious problems.

Kevin Solway wrote: More than that, the aboriginal "spiriitual" culture was so weak that as soon as it was confronted with modern culture from the West it immediately crumbled and aborigines everywhere reverted to dependence on alcohol, glue and petrol sniffing, and domestic violence for sustenance.

A genuine spiritual culture doesn't crumble so easily.

American Indians suffered much the same fate. There is much alcoholism, and the reservation I saw was filled with run-down housing - but in America, this fate is considered to have been a result of the settlers only letting the Indians stay on infertile ground and in such small areas that they could not live off the land in the way that they were used to.

I understand the Australian aborigines suffered much the same fate as the American Indians when colonists came in and took ove Austrailia rather than just blended in with the Australian aborigines as Britian had expected that they would.

I suppose you would also consider the American Indians to have been living like wild animals, off of the land, but I think the point Cory is trying to make is that those who live like animals are much more eco-friendly than modern man.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: it seems to make more sense that if a species is advanced enough for interplanetary travel this far away, they would also be intelligent enough to recognize the value of benevolence. (bold added)

The human race is pretty much advanced enough for interplanetary travel, and yet we aren't intelligent enough to recognize the value of benevolence. We are a race of unconscious half-dead animals and insane maniacs. If alien species are anything like us then we have got serious problems.

We can barely make it around the moon. We have not made it to another planet because we have not figured out a practical way to get there. We have not even figured out how to explore the deepest parts of the oceans on our own planet. I'd hardly cal that "pretty much advanced enough for interplanetary travel" so I'd hardly consider it a fair comparison.

However if we considered only the top scientists who have figured out how to get us as far as we have gotten, and suppose that they might be like the dullards of a species advanced enough to travel this far away, then we might have a more worthwhile comparison. I wouldn't consider the top scientists "unconscious half-dead animals and insane maniacs," although from a philosophical perspective you might, and these top scientists do seem to usually have a good concept of the value of benevolence.
.

Cory Duchesne wrote: Modern man just seems so much more pathetic.

Kevin: Not to me he doesn't. After hundreds of thousands of years the Australian aborigines never developed any science, surgeries, hospitals, space travel, or even writing of any note.

They were essentially living like wild animals - even more so than we are today, which is saying a lot.

More than that, the aboriginal "spiritual" culture was so weak that as soon as it was confronted with modern culture from the West it immediately crumbled and aborigines everywhere reverted to dependence on alcohol, glue and petrol sniffing, and domestic violence for sustenance.

A genuine spiritual culture doesn't crumble so easily.

Well I never said aborigines were 'genuinely spiritual' cultures, nor have I stated that they were genuinely wise. I said they lived more wisely than how the typical modern family lives, the sort that I observe living today.

There is indeed something more pathetic about burning down rainforests for the sake of big macs, paving over the earth so excessively that walking through an industrial park is like walking through the sierra desert. About making extinct almost every edible fish in the ocean. There is something pathetic about the nuculear arms race, practically funded by the wives spending like crazy on the kids and on herself with the man pulling his hair out, secretly in despair --- all the while putting on his diplomatic grin and continuing to submit to his wife.

And as for this 'confrontation with modern culture' - - - It seems to me like aborigines have been for the most part mistreated and abused.

And as for the reversion to drug abuse, that is simply the symptom of a greater disease. Where did the natives get the drugs? Why does modern man handle the drugs better? Well he created them. He has a tradition established to help him deal with his own creations. The natives had a tradition to deal with their creations, not alien creations. Yes if they were wise they could deal with them - but thats not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that a wise person should recognize the qualities that are wise and apply those qualities, while negating that which isnt wise. And no, I'm not advocating habitual controlled burning as a way of life to revert back into, but I'm advocating that we understand that the natives really werent that stupid when left in their more autonomous state

You can't expect the aborigines to deal well with an alien force that suddenly impinges upon their culture and undermines and makes meaningless their cultures way of life.

However, your right about modern man achieving tremendous things as well.

When it all comes down to it though, I know it is the truth that there are simply superior genetics, probably has something to do with the genes involved in the miracle of greece and the popularization of its treasures through the genes carried through the middle ages, endowed only to those who were a part of the races who had climbed from and pulled out of the feminine wild.

However, I guess what I saying is that I always felt that we need the best of both worlds. Having scientific knowledge, a mastery over the art of philosohpy, AND a practial hands on way of survivng that is in accord with nature.

I guess I bought into the ideology a while back that the natives have something useful to teach.

Its just sad to write-off particular groups and individuals as absolutely inferior in every aspect.

Ah well.

Eliz: it seems to make more sense that if a species is advanced enough for interplanetary travel this far away, they would also be intelligent enough to recognize the value of benevolence.

Kevin: The human race is pretty much advanced enough for interplanetary travel, and yet we aren't intelligent enough to recognize the value of benevolence. We are a race of unconscious half-dead animals and insane maniacs. If alien species are anything like us then we have got serious problems.

Yeah but Solway - - wouldnt the ones who leave earth, be the best that humanity has to offer? You would think the ones that get to leave the planet are the most conscious, the best genes.

An increase in intelligence seems to be concomitant with ethics.

For instance, you'll notice the most unethical people are always the stupidest - - - whereas the more intelligent ones always had a certain moral character about them.

There is the cliche that serial killers have great minds, but from what I've studied, they actually seem pretty dim-witted, being imaginitive and intelligent in the most superifical and limited way.

The people who leave earth would probably have great characters. And they would be the foundations for practically a new race. Practically a new species. Post human.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: but in America, this fate is considered to have been a result of the settlers only letting the Indians stay on infertile ground and in such small areas that they could not live off the land in the way that they were used to.

There are many causes to the plight of indigenous peoples. One cause is the insensitivity of invading peoples. The other is their own lack of consciousness and preparedness and lack of a genuine culture that would have empowered them through any misfortune.

I suppose you would also consider the American Indians to have been living like wild animals, off of the land, but I think the point Cory is trying to make is that those who live like animals are much more eco-friendly than modern man.

Sometimes they are. But they still manage to transform the landscape and its species composition.

They are eco-friendly mainly because of their very low numbers.

If you have very low numbers, then no matter how destructive you are you're not going to make all that much of a dint on the world (. . . unless you light huge fires, etc)

We have not made it to another planet because we have not figured out a practical way to get there.

We have the technology. We just haven't had the will to provide the money for it.

If all the money that was spent on Iraq was put into the space program, we might now have manned interplanetary travel.

I wouldn't consider the top scientists "unconscious half-dead animals and insane maniacs," although from a philosophical perspective you might

Just because a person is a top scientist it doesn't mean they are a good or even an intelligent person.

A top scientist can also be a fundamentalist Christian.

, and these top scientists do seem to usually have a good concept of the value of benevolence..

There are some sensible people on earth. But we live in an age that values democracy, which means that the few sensible people have their hands tied with regard to a great many matters.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Well I never said aborigines were 'genuinely spiritual' cultures, nor have I stated that they were genuinely wise. I said they lived more wisely than how the typical modern family lives, the sort that I observe living today.

I would say they lived somewhat differently, but not more wisely.

To say they lived more wisely would mean that they had a greater concern for truth than we do, and I don't believe that was the case.

If they lived wisely then they would be much better prepared to deal with inevitable invasion. And they would be much better able to adapt to changed circumstances.

Aboriginal cultures and peoples are dying out because they were not prepared and were not able to adapt fast enough, and their population levels were too low to be competitive.

Western culture, science, etc, makes us better able to adapt. But, functionally, we are still only marginally better than all other animals, because we have yet to evolve a proper consciousness.

You can't expect the aborigines to deal well with an alien force that suddenly impinges upon their culture and undermines and makes meaningless their cultures way of life.

Well I do expect that of any intelligent being. If the human race is invaded by a stronger foe, which takes our land, and infects us with disease, etc, I will expect human beings to find spiritual strength from within. This will only happen if we have centuries of philosophical/spiritual development.

If our spirit is crushed, it is because we had none.

Having scientific knowledge, a mastery over the art of philosophy, AND a practical hands on way of surviving that is in accord with nature.

These things can only come together, in the same package.

If aboriginal cultures survived for thousands of years by simply spearing kangaroos, regular burning, etc, it is mostly through good luck that they have done so. It is because the conditions were ripe and favourable. There's no real intelligence or wisdom behind it that I can see.

In the end those cultures failed because they were not in accord with nature. Invasion by other races is a part of the normal rhythm of nature which those cultures made no provision for.

Its just sad to write-off particular groups and individuals as absolutely inferior in every aspect.

Yes, it's sad. But it must be said that our own culture doesn't have a whole lot going for it. For even though we have enough intelligence to do science and write books etc, those skills are nearly always put to the service of blind animality - which negates the value of those skills.

Consciousness is celebrated with unconsciousness.

Kevin Solway wrote:If all the money that was spent on Iraq was put into the space program, we might now have manned interplanetary travel.

Geeze, Kevin, you couldn't have made my point for me more perfectly if you had tried. If only we were advanced enough to spend our resources on interplanetary travel rather than blowing each other and our planet up, then we might have manned interplanetary travel. Then we would be the kind of people who had outgrown trying to take over (invade) others... posing little or no threat to others (little being room for potential inadvertent adverse effects).

But in order to advance that far, we'd have to learn things like how to work and play well with others, give up attachments to petty differences while recognizing the value of diversity, and other things that would translate well into not being harmful invaders of other planets.

.


Yes, let's give up here, and repeat all the errors of colonialism on a cosmic scale [/sarcasm]


.

Pye wrote:Yes, let's give up here, and repeat all the errors of colonialism on a cosmic scale [/sarcasm]

Although your point that colonization has proven detrimental to indigenous people and lands is well made, I wonder if you are catching the point of people would have to evolve past the sorts of things that led to those errors. We would also have to evolve past more subtle forms of invasion that don’t involve colonization, like missionaries. This falls under the realm of appreciation of diversity.

We don’t have any more concept of the extent of social evolution that would have to take place for this than a 3 year old child has a concept of what it really means to be an adult. The current state of human affairs is little more advanced than the culture depicted in Lord of the Flies, and for us to be truly advanced as a species, we would have to advance much further than the distance of that gap.

If there were people on Mars, we probably would have messed up that planet by now, too. Fortunately we are a bit more isolated than that, forcing us to advance more before we are able to take the risk/opportunity of contact with other worlds, and other worlds would have to also be more advanced than the bumbling state that we are in before reaching us.

Is there a responsible way to have interplanetary relations? Perhaps it is with childish optimism that many of us think so, but it is with childish optimism that we think we can stand and walk like the grown-ups.

Knowledge and wisdom are like two legs of the same person – similar in some ways but more opposite than different, yet we walk best with one leg of each kind. We won’t be able to “walk” to interplanetary relations until we have enough strength in both legs, and with the strength to do so, consequently we should be able to understand whether we should have interplanetary relations (as should another species before it contacts us) – and have an increased likelihood of acting accordingly.