• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Xero's Rule

Re: Zeno's Rule

It'll never happen.

Before you can get from your own planet to another, you have to get to the point halfway between the two planets.

But before you can get there, you have to get to the point halfway to that point, or a quarter of the way between your own planet and the destination planet.

But before you can get to that 1/4 point, you have to get halfway to it.

And so on, infinitely. Since you must pass through an infinite number of “halfway points”, in a finite amount of time, you will never reach your destination.

So, in a footrace Achilles can't ever catch up to a turtle if the turtle has a 1-foot lead?
Ah,so...
 
You should stop using quotes of famous dead people to make an argument. It is an appeal to authority and shows a complete lack of original thought to ride on those coat tails. Please stop with this nonsense.
 
You should stop using quotes of famous dead people to make an argument. It is an appeal to authority and shows a complete lack of original thought to ride on those coat tails. Please stop with this nonsense.

Passages by J.S. Mill are nonsense? I don't share them because he's famous...I share them because they accurately describe the real world. If you think they are inaccurate in some way...then please feel free to articulate where they fall short. You won't be able to do so though. I know it for a fact. You have absolutely nothing intelligent to say about J.S. Mill's arguments.
 
You focus your argument on trade and economics. Those factors have contributed to, but are not the sole cause of aggressive imperialistic action in human history. To project them as the prime motivators of Extra Terrestral Intelligence (ETI) in a first contact scenario is over-simplifying the equation.

Can economics explain human sacrifice?

Throughout our history religion has shown itself to be a mighty motivator of conquest and dominance. "God Wills It" has been mimicked everywhere; in the crusades, the moslem jihad, and other examples. It is entirely possible that an ETI encounter would be based upon their desire to convert by force our entire species to a new religious order. Maybe we would not agree with that and conflict would result.

Failure to understand the positive correlation between progress and trade/tolerance has been at the root of all conquest and dominance.

Then, there is the simple ethnocentric desire to dominate that is exemplified in such conquerors as Xerxes, Genghis Khan, and Hitler. There is always the possibility the ETI believes in it's innate right to rule all other species it encounters.

But there are people in our society, such as myself, who understand the negative economic consequences of genocide. It's doubtful that less and less people will understand this as time goes on.

A2. Well, despite arguments to the contrary, it is entirely possible that ETI contact could flood our planet with new and destructive species (like the Norweigian Rat) and diseases that could decimate out planetary population. Imagine plagues we could not cure, or beast that acted like locusts we could not control. Things the ETI's never considered when they contemplated contact.

This doesn't counter my argument. My argument was simply that their intentions would be peaceful because they would have already discovered the positive correlation between trade and progress. Obviously this doesn't mean that there's a 0% chance of unintended consequences. I would have to be an idiot to make that argument and I'm not an idiot.

Do you agree that there's a positive correlation between progress and trade?
 
This doesn't counter my argument. My argument was simply that their intentions would be peaceful because they would have already discovered the positive correlation between trade and progress. Obviously this doesn't mean that there's a 0% chance of unintended consequences. I would have to be an idiot to make that argument and I'm not an idiot.

Do you agree that there's a positive correlation between progress and trade?

(Geez, he cites a blog essay on the economics of (literal) "human sacrifice.")

You are projecting human economic theory onto alien intelligence, and that is a major fallacy of your thesis. You also fail to recognize that in a highly advanced alien civilization there may be economic systems in place that we could not begin to comprehend much less participate in.

Beyond that such an advanced civilization might not want or need cooperation or participation. For example these ETI could have a massive system of automatics (robots, androids, cyborgs) upon which they normally depend for planetary resource development and could simply use to take the resources they need, and ignore us unless we tried to disrupt the processes. Then I'd think they'd treat us like a nuisance, like vermin.

Furtheremore, what could we possibly have to offer an advanced alien civilization that they would not already have in a more advanced form? What could cavemen offer us if we ever encountered any at this stage in our level of technology? Scrimshaw and other cultural trinkets of novel handicrafts? LOL

I've already pointed out in my prior response just a few realistic scenarios where trade and economics have no play during a first contact situation. I have also shown briefly in both posts that alien intelligences encountering us would just as likely have about as much consideration for what we had to offer in "trade" as we would some roach or rat infestation. Perhaps at best they might treat us like a swarm of honey bees in the unlikely event there was anything they thought we could produce that they didn't already have.

Even in the most benign situation, it would be like Americans of today encountering cavemen of pre-history, with every piece of their technology looking like "magic" to us and serving to destroy our culture and economic systems. Perhaps that is the reason why we have not encountered any advanced civilizations so far, because they've created a solar system "forest preserve" to protect us from the harm of their advanced society.

Now wake up and stop your silly "focus on my question, not my thesis" tactic. It's very juvenile.
 
Last edited:
Re: Zeno's Rule

In order to get here, they will probably be a carbon-based life form with sufficient manipulative skills to construct a FTL space-ship. As revolting as humans are, I doubt we'll be viewed as the level of ants.

Everything you did today would have seemed to be magic 200 years ago. When we encounter primitive tribes in Africa, we don't tend to want to harm them. Besides that, Mr. Blaylock has demonstrated that they will never arrive anyway.

I seem to recall things not working out so well for African tribes when they were first discovered...

And that's among two members of the same species.
 
Passages by J.S. Mill are nonsense? I don't share them because he's famous...I share them because they accurately describe the real world. If you think they are inaccurate in some way...then please feel free to articulate where they fall short. You won't be able to do so though. I know it for a fact. You have absolutely nothing intelligent to say about J.S. Mill's arguments.

You are right I will never be able to prove to a bible pusher that god doesn't exist.
 
What advantage could you possibly gain by proving a negative?
 
You are right I will never be able to prove to a bible pusher that god doesn't exist.
Paul Samuelson, a liberal economist, provided the definitive economic justification for the government. His assumption was that government planners are omniscient. So the irony here is that you are actually the bible pusher. My only argument is that government planners are not omniscient...therefore taxpayers should have the freedom to shop for themselves in the public sector.

You're welcome to try and prove that government planners are omniscient. But we've already established that you have absolutely no idea what Samuelson is talking about. Therefore, you don't understand market economists...and you don't understand liberal economists. Basically, you don't understand economics at all.
 
Re: Zeno's Rule

They don't need to keep us alive--they might just harvest our skulls for Planet Chia to have materials to grow their grass on.

Hey. That's Capitalism at work and not a bad idea at all. I wish I'd thought of that first.

I seem to recall things not working out so well for African tribes when they were first discovered...

And that's among two members of the same species.

Yes, but remember how primitive we were at the time. Also, we didn't think black colored people were the same species and it's only been 48 years since we adjusted our laws to "make them human". Since the opposition is very advanced - they've demonstrated that by finding us and traveling a 55,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,037 journey to reach us, I will hold them to the higher standard.
 
Re: Zeno's Rule

I will hold them to the higher standard.
sez the creature who shares 98% of his DNA with this guy?


2uduu8j.jpg


I'm bettin' them ETI's will give your expectation all the consideration it is due.
 
Re: Zeno's Rule

sez the creature who shares 98% of his DNA with this guy?

2uduu8j.jpg


I'm bettin' them ETI's will give your expectation all the consideration it is due.

DNA is a strange thing and we share DNA with every living creature. Do you shoot monkeys? Why not? They don't have any trading goods.

Trust me, my people will be kind to your people. We love your handicrafts, so colorful.
 
Re: Zeno's Rule

hmmm well now THERE's something to consider ZOMG
what if we tested it and found that we shared DNA with the ETI's
now wouldn't that bake everyone's noodle?
 
Paul Samuelson, a liberal economist, provided the definitive economic justification for the government. His assumption was that government planners are omniscient. So the irony here is that you are actually the bible pusher. My only argument is that government planners are not omniscient...therefore taxpayers should have the freedom to shop for themselves in the public sector.

You're welcome to try and prove that government planners are omniscient. But we've already established that you have absolutely no idea what Samuelson is talking about. Therefore, you don't understand market economists...and you don't understand liberal economists. Basically, you don't understand economics at all.
I've never made the claim that government planners are omniscient. You continue to strawman me when ever you get backed into trying to prove anything.
 
I've never made the claim that government planners are omniscient. You continue to strawman me when ever you get backed into trying to prove anything.

I'm glad you agree that government planners aren't omniscient. Therefore, you agree that they are incapable of providing the optimal quantities of public goods. Therefore, you agree that MMT is a stupid idea. Me too.
 
I say bring back tetraethyllead !
 
I'm glad you agree that government planners aren't omniscient. Therefore, you agree that they are incapable of providing the optimal quantities of public goods. Therefore, you agree that MMT is a stupid idea. Me too.
MMT actually doesn't say that government should spend but that they give the private sector more ability to spend via less taxation and a job guarantee bill so that private citizens can vote with their dollars.

Again you fail to understand what my message is and actually argue against yourself.
 
MMT actually doesn't say that government should spend but that they give the private sector more ability to spend via less taxation and a job guarantee bill so that private citizens can vote with their dollars.

Again you fail to understand what my message is and actually argue against yourself.

So you want to get rid of the government's printing press?
 
You are projecting human economic theory onto alien intelligence, and that is a major fallacy of your thesis. You also fail to recognize that in a highly advanced alien civilization there may be economic systems in place that we could not begin to comprehend much less participate in.

An organism doesn't crawl from the muck one day and build an intergalactic cruiser the next. In between event A and event B...there's an extremely messy process of discovery. The discovery process involves coming up with better uses of society's limited resources. The more individuals who have the freedom to participate in the discovery process...the greater the quantity/quality of better uses that will be discovered.

How can a species make it to event B without seeing the correlation between trading and progress?
 
An organism doesn't crawl from the muck one day and build an intergalactic cruiser the next. In between event A and event B...there's an extremely messy process of discovery. The discovery process involves coming up with better uses of society's limited resources. The more individuals who have the freedom to participate in the discovery process...the greater the quantity/quality of better uses that will be discovered.

How can a species make it to event B without seeing the correlation between trading and progress?

Since you keep relying on human ideology (apparently unable to conceive that Aliens might actually have completely "alien" thought processes) you can answer your own question(s) by simply taking examples from human history. I've done my best to provide examples but you continue to stick to your thesis as if it even reflects either past or current reality.

Many non-trade factors influence how civilizations progress. For example it can be argued that the greatest leaps in human technological advancement have tended to occur during periods of war. War has a negative impact on trade, yet human nations still engage in it frequently for irrational reasons. Also, as you keep ignoring, human history has shown that advanced civilizations inevitably disrupt less advanced ones even when trying to act in the most benign manner. That in situations when advanced civilizations encounter less advanced ones devastating trade imbalance in favor of the more advanced civilization always occurs.

There is literally NOTHING our less advanced civilization could possibly offer on par with a more advanced one engaging in first contact. Natural resources, labor, perhaps a few trinkets. None of these require our cooperation, and your assumption of altruism on the part of a technologically more advanced alien culture is merely hopeful speculation.

Your trade thesis is unrealistic, as you would admit if you could merely open your mind to the "what if" comparison of America today encountering caveman of 10,000 B.C. Despite your pride in our current technological level, that would literally be the comparison between us and any alien intelligence capable of traveling between solar systems like we travel between continents.

So to answer your final question; simply because being "Alien Intelligences" with alien motivations they don't have to see the same "correlation between trading and progress" that you presume they should. To them, we might simply be "food."
 
Last edited:
Since you keep relying on human ideology (apparently unable to conceive that Aliens might actually have completely "alien" thought processes) you can answer your own question(s) by simply taking examples from human history. I've done my best to provide examples but you continue to stick to your thesis as if it even reflects either past or current reality.

Aliens have different thought processes...therefore the basic laws of economics don't apply to them? When this alien species crawled from the muck...did they have to deal with scarcity?
 
So you want to get rid of the government's printing press?

Where did you get that from? I'm pretty sure he was suggesting less taxation.

You don't want less taxation?
 
better uses of society's limited resources
there is no such thing as limited resources, that's a lie. there is no limit to our ability to resolve technological problems
 
Back
Top Bottom