What on Earth?

My comments in this piece relate to a now famous "proposal" from the early 1960's from which quotes are excerpted below. Many may see my use of this document, which has formed so much of the basis for "urban legends" regarding alleged government conspiracies, as evidence of my acceptance or belief in these allegations, whereas at this point, even after many years of carefully considered research, I am not even concerned whether there are or are not any alleged government cover ups. Rather, I am going to use this document to discuss certain aspects of the way certain people think.

Excerpts from:

Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs

Brookings Institution Report

"Anthropological files contain many examples of societies, sure of their place in the universe, which have disintegrated when they had to associate with previously unfamiliar societies espousing different ideas and different life ways: others that survived such an experience usually did so by paying the price of damage in values and attitudes and behavior." page 215

Wow, is this ever badly written!

I love the phrase, "sure of their place in the universe." Is this a value? Does any society really benefit from this level of "belief in itself?" Is a society an autonomous organism with its own consciousness or self consciousness? What if none of these assumptions were valid? It is relatively true that when some societies come in contact with others and there is a difference in technology, the society with weaker technology usually "disintegrates." Were they "sure of their place in the universe" before another society came in and conquered them? How about the native societies in the Americas? How about primitive societies in other parts of the world? Can anyone doubt that some of these societies needed to yield to the societies that conquered them?

Concerning "values, attitudes and behavior," can any informed and genuinely humane person really bemoan the extinction of cannibalism, human sacrifice, various other cruel practices, including the putting to death by social exclusion or self immolation of widows, etc. etc.? Oh, of course there really are some academics and others out there whose field of study would be greatly diminished by the complete elimination of primitive "values, attitudes and behavior" in primitive societies whom they tend to regard in the same sense as preserves for endangered species. What assholes!

"Continuing studies to determine emotional and intellectual understanding, and attitudes - and successive alterations of them if any - regarding the possibility and consequences of discovering intelligent extraterrestrial life: ... How might such information, under what circumstances, be presented to or withheld from the public for what ends? What might be the role of the discovering scientists and other decision makers regarding release of the fact of discovery?" page 216.

The presumption involved in this series of statements is expressed by the following smug assumptions;

1) the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life will be made by scientists. Oh, I love that. There is probably no other single group of people as "sure of their place in the universe" as organized scientists. If you didn't hear it from them, it just isn't so. These people think of themselves as "special." They are smarter than the rest of us, better informed, etc. Their views of the world, of a whole variety of experiences are such that to disagree with them is courting disaster. They think of themselves as the ultimate skeptics unless skepticism is aimed at their own theories. Then they turn vicious. One who does not accept their view of the universe is considered a fit target for the most malicious ridicule. Is this really science? Is this the way to get to the truth of anything?

2) that decision makers have some moral responsibility to "protect the public" by keeping a tight lid on the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life, or what is unstated, any other information they consider dangerous to their own "place in the universe." The other very smug group out there are those closely aligned with the idea that government exists to "control" society. These include people in the media who are so "sure of their place in the universe" that again, unless you heard it from them, it just isn't so. These people want to be associated with objective power, especially power over other people. Even when they say they are "only trying to help," their motivation is to control. For instance, the current political fights in America concern the right to speak, say or write just about what one wants, regardless of its variance from "conventional wisdom," and the right to keep and bear arms. What makes them think that they have any real control over private citizens anywhere in the world who may have already made contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life? I think it far more likely that some kids out there may have contacted intelligent space aliens than degreed scientists.

"The Fundamentalist (and anti-science) sects are growing apace around the world. ... For them, the discovery of other life - rather than any other space product - would be electrifying. ... Scientists and engineers might be the most devastated by the discovery of relatively superior creatures, since these professions are most clearly associated with the mastery of nature, rather than the understanding and expression of man." page 225.

Question; how are religious fundamentalists and conventional scientists similar? They're fanatics. Do we see a case here of one group trying to protect or "stabilize" the other group? Just what is meant by "electrifying?" Also note the bogus phrases "mastery of nature" and "understanding and expression of man" almost as if these were mutually exclusive concerns or diametrically opposed concepts.

Now here's my opinion. A Fundamentalist, whether anti-science or not, is a person who builds their entire outlook on life on a BOOK. They usually regard this book as "holy", "inspired", "the Word of God", etc. Some examples of books used to build outlooks on life are the Bible, the Koran, the I Ching, the various Hindu scriptures, or even more modern books, Capital (by Karl Marx), The Origin of Species and the Descent of Man (by Charles Darwin), Love Is Letting Go Of Fear (by Gerald G. Jampolsky MD), The Betty Crocker Cook Book. etc. Now, I have read a lot of books. One thing I was always sure of was that all of these books were written by people. To the extent that they may contain truth is for me and any reader to discover and be convinced of by themselves without the pressure to believe in anything simply because someone else says so. This is true skepticism.

I remember years ago discussing truth with a young person from China who was working with us. According to her, nothing could be accepted as true unless those asserting it as true had the force to back it up. She actually looked to outside authorities to determine for her what was and was not true. I tried to explain to her that my concept of truth had to stand completely outside the realm of force. If something were true, it would be true regardless of whether the whole world thought otherwise. In such cases, the truth would and could be a subjective reality.

A true scientist (LOL) regards nothing as proven to be true unless it can be demonstrated as true by repeated and repeatable experiment anywhere at anytime under exactly the same circumstances. Since this is usually a far more limited set of accepted "truths" than are usually assumed by the rest of us, these people should be more skeptical about everything than the rest of us. But they aren't. The fact is that they usually rather assume more as true, especially concerning their own pet theories, than the tenets of their science allow. Therefore most scientists as well as other people who pride themselves on their skeptical outlook are actually just as narrow minded as the typical religious fundamentalists and just as fanatical.

"It is perhaps interesting to note that when asked what the consequences of the discovery of superior life would be, an audience of Saturday Review readership, chose for the most part not to answer the question at all, in spite of their detailed answers to many other speculative questions. Perhaps the idea is so foreign that even this readership was bemused by it. But one can speculate too, that the idea of intellectually superior creatures may be anxiety provoking. Nor is it clear what would be the reaction to creatures of approximately equal and communicable intelligence to ours." page 226.

Yes, one can speculate. One can predict that any distinct beings deserving to be called "God" or "gods" would be so different from us that "their ways would not be our ways." What of the anxiety that ideas held to be scientific; proved to be true, based on purely materialist notions of the origins of life on earth, including us, may in fact not be true at all? What if we have a far more mysterious history and heritage? What of those matters in our everyday lives that we know to be true yet cannot prove by any experiment? In the future more of these areas will be considered in this forum.

"be seeing you..."

The Polar Bear