Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What if the prawn live better in District 9 than they ever did under the prawn ruling caste?

EETS EH TWEEST!!!!

Oldgrue wrote:An interesting question though. For 27 years of Wikus' life the Prawn were subhuman. His culture just got a boost over the wounds of apartheid by having a common enemy. I think the analogy for the prawn gets more frightening as the Afrikaans slang 'Kaffir' equates in English to somewhere between (that filtered N word) and cockroach. So this 27 years of oppression stacks with breeding permits. He was wiping out an infestation, not killing presentient beings. Its hard to understand the savagery of an act if one is culturally conditioned the act is acceptable.

This is precisely my point, actually. I would like to think that anyone with a moral conscience would have been able to figure out that killing infant prawn was wrong. Hell, "population control" of sentient life is wrong no matter the form it takes, but killing babies?

It's the lack of comprehension that makes the act savage; and by extension, makes the culture that's responsible for the conditioning equally savage.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Do you consider abortion to be murder? Not to be getting personal, but I wouldn't see the burning of the eggs as murder if the forming prawn weren't so neurologically developed as to be considered sentient, or sapient. Not exactly kindly, but not actual murder.

Then you also have to consider what Wikus knew of their development. Even if they weren't something that could be destroyed ethically if he had no means of finding this out he wasn't knowingly doing something wrong (for some reason it seemed like MNU was in charge of pretty much all knowledge of the aliens).

I will say this…I am politically pro-choice, as I don’t think the government has the right to rule on a moral issue which is scientifically so nebulous when a woman’s freedom to rule her own body is concerned.

Personally…if my wife got pregnant and she wanted to abort, we’d have a serious problem. That would be my kid as soon as we got past the first trimester such that, within all probability, that was a viable fetus which in seven more months would be definitively my child if all else went normally and well.

In my mind, a moral person wouldn't be okay with burning those eggs precisely because he didn't know much about their development. A moral person would err on the side of caution, IMHO, and protect life. If he knew for a fact that they were just inert eggs, that's one thing. When he talks about "The little guys trying to get out of there," that sounds to me like he knows that that's life in there which is trying to survive.

Cairnius wrote:

Oldgrue wrote:An interesting question though. For 27 years of Wikus' life the Prawn were subhuman. His culture just got a boost over the wounds of apartheid by having a common enemy. I think the analogy for the prawn gets more frightening as the Afrikaans slang 'Kaffir' equates in English to somewhere between (that filtered N word) and cockroach. So this 27 years of oppression stacks with breeding permits. He was wiping out an infestation, not killing presentient beings. Its hard to understand the savagery of an act if one is culturally conditioned the act is acceptable.

This is precisely my point, actually. I would like to think that anyone with a moral conscience would have been able to figure out that killing infant prawn was wrong. Hell, "population control" of sentient life is wrong no matter the form it takes, but killing babies?

Again this is a philosophy discusson perspective on my part.

I'd proffer that statement is extremely flawed and opposite to what should be done.
Wiping out the opposite is exactly what is needed for preservation of humanity. We have every indication that the prawn are at least equal in intelligence, and have a more advanced technology base. They are the greatest threat to humanity since the black death.

Its time honored human tradition and has kept us at the apex predator for 50,000 years. Just ask the neanderthals. Just ask the Pan Fo.

In my mind, a moral person wouldn't be okay with burning those eggs precisely because he didn't know much about their development. A moral person would err on the side of caution, IMHO, and protect life. If he knew for a fact that they were just inert eggs, that's one thing. When he talks about "The little guys trying to get out of there," that sounds to me like he knows that that's life in there which is trying to survive.

What about the realistic aspect of the need for population control in a species that consumes a considerable amount of resource to live and seemingly reproduces in mass numbers, hundreds, perhaps thousands at a time. While it may be inhumane I find it unlikely that in the prawns own society that allow their population to flourish in such a way. Typically such forms of reproduction are only present in species with an immensely high rate of mortality before adulthood. Primarily insects and fish. Typically "lower" or "simpler" life forms. Such a mortality rate in a technologically evolved species though would likely cease to exist, resulting in either incredibly strict controls (which the humans have seemingly initiated) or draconian culling of the population (which the humans have not). Since even in their own society, it appeared that resources were not limitless.

It's not sustainable.

Frazzled wrote:Again this is a philosophy discusson perspective on my part.

I'd proffer that statement is extremely flawed and opposite to what should be done.
Wiping out the opposite is exactly what is needed for preservation of humanity. We have every indication that the prawn are at least equal in intelligence, and have a more advanced technology base. They are the greatest threat to humanity since the black death.

Its time honored human tradition and has kept us at the apex predator for 50,000 years. Just ask the neanderthals. Just ask the Pan Fo.

Frazz...do you get that any conversation of any depth could, technically, be called "philosophy?"

Do you get that District 9 isn't some exercise in testosterone idiocy, as much as I may enjoy those films sometimes, as "Aliens" or "Predator?" It is MEANT to inspire thought...so any substantive discussion about District 9 is going to be "philosophical" from a certain point of view.

You are also, ironically, then having a philosophy discussion...about human tradition and behavior.

Your comment works under the assumption that the prawns would have been hostile to man without provocation. This is the problem with acting like the neanderthals you're talking about (which is precisely what one would be doing if they wiped out an alien species without trying to figure them out first) - when you act stupidly, make rash decisions, and make colossal mistakes, sometimes you never get to fix them.

I am glad that you are not employed by SETI, Frazz. I would say that what is needed for the preservation of humanity is wiping out anyone who is quick to the trigger, or who wants to wipe out anything different but harmless.

Different and dangerous, that's something else...one of the great ironies of life is that intolerance for intolerance is about the only way to wipe out intolerance...intolerance may actually be the only thing it is actually morally "right," from the point of view of either and both of the two schools of moral philosophy, to be intolerant towards.

And this is why philosophers lose their minds eventually. Paradoxes rule!

Crap, I think that cairnius blocked me back when I PM'd him a while back. Would someone mind quoting me so he can see my text block? I would like his thoughts on the matter.

ShumaGorath wrote:

In my mind, a moral person wouldn't be okay with burning those eggs precisely because he didn't know much about their development. A moral person would err on the side of caution, IMHO, and protect life. If he knew for a fact that they were just inert eggs, that's one thing. When he talks about "The little guys trying to get out of there," that sounds to me like he knows that that's life in there which is trying to survive.

What about the realistic aspect of the need for population control in a species that consumes a considerable amount of resource to live and seemingly reproduces in mass numbers, hundreds, perhaps thousands at a time. While it may be inhumane I find it unlikely that in the prawns own society that allow their population to flourish in such a way. Typically such forms of reproduction are only present in species with an immensely high rate of mortality before adulthood. Primarily insects and fish. Typically "lower" or "simpler" life forms. Such a mortality rate in a technologically evolved species though would likely cease to exist, resulting in either incredibly strict controls (which the humans have seemingly initiated) or draconian culling of the population (which the humans have not). Since even in their own society, it appeared that resources were not limitless.

It's not sustainable.

I live to serve.

The Dreadnote wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

In my mind, a moral person wouldn't be okay with burning those eggs precisely because he didn't know much about their development. A moral person would err on the side of caution, IMHO, and protect life. If he knew for a fact that they were just inert eggs, that's one thing. When he talks about "The little guys trying to get out of there," that sounds to me like he knows that that's life in there which is trying to survive.

What about the realistic aspect of the need for population control in a species that consumes a considerable amount of resource to live and seemingly reproduces in mass numbers, hundreds, perhaps thousands at a time. While it may be inhumane I find it unlikely that in the prawns own society that allow their population to flourish in such a way. Typically such forms of reproduction are only present in species with an immensely high rate of mortality before adulthood. Primarily insects and fish. Typically "lower" or "simpler" life forms. Such a mortality rate in a technologically evolved species though would likely cease to exist, resulting in either incredibly strict controls (which the humans have seemingly initiated) or draconian culling of the population (which the humans have not). Since even in their own society, it appeared that resources were not limitless.

It's not sustainable.

I live to serve.

I appreciate it.

Cairnius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Again this is a philosophy discusson perspective on my part.

I'd proffer that statement is extremely flawed and opposite to what should be done.
Wiping out the opposite is exactly what is needed for preservation of humanity. We have every indication that the prawn are at least equal in intelligence, and have a more advanced technology base. They are the greatest threat to humanity since the black death.

Its time honored human tradition and has kept us at the apex predator for 50,000 years. Just ask the neanderthals. Just ask the Pan Fo.

Frazz...do you get that any conversation of any depth could, technically, be called "philosophy?"

Do you get that District 9 isn't some exercise in testosterone idiocy, as much as I may enjoy those films sometimes, as "Aliens" or "Predator?" It is MEANT to inspire thought...so any substantive discussion about District 9 is going to be "philosophical" from a certain point of view.

You are also, ironically, then having a philosophy discussion...about human tradition and behavior.

Your comment works under the assumption that the prawns would have been hostile to man without provocation. This is the problem with acting like the neanderthals you're talking about (which is precisely what one would be doing if they wiped out an alien species without trying to figure them out first) - when you act stupidly, make rash decisions, and make colossal mistakes, sometimes you never get to fix them.

I am glad that you are not employed by SETI, Frazz. I would say that what is needed for the preservation of humanity is wiping out anyone who is quick to the trigger, or who wants to wipe out anything different but harmless.

Different and dangerous, that's something else...one of the great ironies of life is that intolerance for intolerance is about the only way to wipe out intolerance...intolerance may actually be the only thing it is actually morally "right," from the point of view of either and both of the two schools of moral philosophy, to be intolerant towards.

And this is why philosophers lose their minds eventually. Paradoxes rule!

Philosophically means (other than testing my elementary typing capabilities-speaking of neaderthal with a typewriter) I'm trying to keep this discsussion at the nice level. You keep attacking me. Why? Why are you taking this personally and casting dispersions on me. You make Frazzled sad

Cairnius wrote:I am glad that you are not employed by SETI, Frazz. I would say that what is needed for the preservation of humanity is wiping out anyone who is quick to the trigger, or who wants to wipe out anything different but harmless.

SETI... is so absolutely necessary to human life and survival of the species... right?

Cairnius, your being rather intense about this whole thing. I approach conversation with some family members better than you have, on occasion in here . I doubt that you are trying to be, intense, but you still come across as rather, very, totally, absolutely... wait, I see a cool guy face.

I am now confused.

And this is why philosophers lose their minds eventually. Paradoxes rule!

As you appear to have subtly invested in? Philosophy long since lost my mind quite a long time ago.... see what I did there?

Frazzled wrote:
Wiping out the opposite is exactly what is needed for preservation of humanity. We have every indication that the prawn are at least equal in intelligence, and have a more advanced technology base. They are the greatest threat to humanity since the black death.

Its time honored human tradition and has kept us at the apex predator for 50,000 years.

We actually haven't wiped out that many species in the course of our evolution. Most of the extinction events that have occurred during our evolutionary history were the result of environmental causes. Nature isn't nearly as brutal as you believe, Fraz. Lions don't go on crusades against the heathen cheetah of Africa.

Cairnius wrote:
Do you get that District 9 isn't some exercise in testosterone idiocy, as much as I may enjoy those films sometimes, as "Aliens" or "Predator?" It is MEANT to inspire thought...so any substantive discussion about District 9 is going to be "philosophical" from a certain point of view.

You are also, ironically, then having a philosophy discussion...about human tradition and behavior.

He knows its a philosophy discussion. Hence the statement "this is a philosophy discussion". He's offering his opinion on the philosophy discussion. Yes, his opinion resembles a generic action flick, but that's not the context of the statement. That's you being dismissive.

Cairnius wrote:
Your comment works under the assumption that the prawns would have been hostile to man without provocation.

It works within any system in which humans are considered to be in competition with the Prawns; especially one in which the Prawn have an obvious competitive advantage. Not necessarily reason to commit genocide, but certainly reason to take them as a serious threat.

Cairnius wrote:
Different and dangerous, that's something else...one of the great ironies of life is that intolerance for intolerance is about the only way to wipe out intolerance...intolerance may actually be the only thing it is actually morally "right,"

Different is intrinsically dangerous. When there are two clearly defined groups there is always the possibility that one group will attack the other, when there's only one group that possibility doesn't exist. However, danger is an intrinsic component of life, so a hyper-aggressive response is not necessarily justified.

Cairnius wrote:
from the point of view of either and both of the two schools of moral philosophy,

There are far more than two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Philosophically means (other than testing my elementary typing capabilities-speaking of neaderthal with a typewriter) I'm trying to keep this discsussion at the nice level. You keep attacking me. Why? Why are you taking this personally and casting dispersions on me. You make Frazzled sad

There's an easy answer to that question. Though I'll probably be warned for posting it.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Wiping out the opposite is exactly what is needed for preservation of humanity. We have every indication that the prawn are at least equal in intelligence, and have a more advanced technology base. They are the greatest threat to humanity since the black death.

Its time honored human tradition and has kept us at the apex predator for 50,000 years.

We actually haven't wiped out that many species in the course of our evolution. Most of the extinction events that have occurred during our evolutionary history were the result of environmental causes. Nature isn't nearly as brutal as you believe, Fraz. Lions don't go on crusades against the heathen cheetah of Africa.

You're right, I'm pushing an extreme position for argument, but one especoused by several writers in this area of issue.
One of the theories of the neaderthal is that homo sapiens "dealt" with them.
We do know that differing lines in human predecessor were in competition and lost (erectus vs. other types)
Humans typically take out predators whenever possible.
We're absolutely vicious against bacteria and virus who are our only real remaining threats.

Humanity, like the rest of nature, is in active competition with other species. The prawns are a direct threat as they have similar or better intelligence-our primary competitive advantage. If you don't wipe them out you pen them up if you can, which is what was done.

dogma wrote:When there are two clearly defined groups there is always the possibility that one group will attack the other, when there's only one group that possibility doesn't exist. However, danger is an intrinsic component of life, so a hyper-aggressive response is not necessarily justified.

Sadly true, however it's odds on that the one group will find a reason to split into two groups. It's much easier to define ourselves by what we are not. *cue 'Lion King' music*

dogma wrote:

There's an easy answer to that question. Though I'll probably be warned for posting it.

You're right, I'm pushing an extreme position for argument, but one especoused by several writers in this area of issue.
One of the theories of the neaderthal is that homo sapiens "dealt" with them.
We do know that differing lines in human predecessor were in competition and lost (erectus vs. other types)
Humans typically take out predators whenever possible.
We're absolutely vicious against bacteria and virus who are our only real remaining threats.

Isn't common belief right now that through interbreeding, climate change, and general strife the Neanderthal rejoined our branch on the evolutionary tree? Dwindling naturally and unnaturally while being absorbed into the more successful southern species.

Humanity, like the rest of nature, is in active competition with other species. The prawns are a direct threat as they have similar or better intelligence-our primary competitive advantage. If you don't wipe them out you pen them up if you can, which is what was done.

Actually the prawns were an indirect threat, which only became direct through mismanagement, mistreatment, and eventual escape. Had one of their giant ships gone missing in our solar system it stands to reason that they would likely have eventually come looking for it anyway. How bad would it look to have the ship in pieces and no sight of anything but dead prawns in our history.

By penning them up we have at once the natural idea of controlling and destroying the threat while at least in some respect enjoying the sanctity of life that society brings. Humans do not live "naturally", something always has to give, and the worst in their nature overpowered the prescience of thought that would have led to better, tighter control, and a more friendly space faring populace in the future.

Humans did what they always do, they got greedy and fethed it up. This time they just did so in a way that could lead to their end through space lasers, rather than climate change, nuclear war, or what have you.

Cairnius wrote:one of the great ironies of life is that intolerance for intolerance is about the only way to wipe out intolerance

Saying that all intolerance is bad is silly anyways, though.

Hey I'm not walking through a camp fire. Why? I'm intolerant of being burned alive. Or, I'm intolerant of being stabbed, to put it into the context of interaction with another person. The fact that saying all intolerance is bad produces a paradox is the least of that theory's problems, in my opinion.

Dogma wrote:Lions don't go on crusades against the heathen cheetah of Africa.

I'd buy that for a dollar!!!

Frazz wrote:Humanity, like the rest of nature, is in active competition with other species. The prawns are a direct threat as they have similar or better intelligence-our primary competitive advantage. If you don't wipe them out you pen them up if you can, which is what was done.

I think that the final point of the movie is that we are in competition (at least theoretically) with all other potential life. Whether or not the "aliens" will come back and wreak their wrath on the "pitiful humans" is not as important as the acknowledgment that a decision will be made one way or another. In terms of context I think that district 9 did a fantastic job of drawing a pretty rough line from "current" events.

I would fear an asteroid far more than some goddam bugs, I tell you what.

Furthermore, I would fear the bugs that threw an asteroid with purpose and intention, more importantly the capability to do so without any source of amusement.

Humans bad, rock smash, problem solved. Would you like some tea Gwrxylsuo-78352? Yes please YWersfxb-4327.

Frazzled wrote:
You're right, I'm pushing an extreme position for argument, but one especoused by several writers in this area of issue.
One of the theories of the neaderthal is that homo sapiens "dealt" with them.

Yeah, I've encountered those writers before. And I think they have some valid insight into the matter. Personally, I think the actual process was of mixed methods. Some combination of interbreeding, territorial violence, and unintentional resource deprivation.

Frazzled wrote:
We do know that differing lines in human predecessor were in competition and lost (erectus vs. other types)
Humans typically take out predators whenever possible.

Of course, elimination through competition doesn't necessarily mean 'crush, kill, destroy', but you already knew that.

Frazzled wrote:
We're absolutely vicious against bacteria and virus who are our only real remaining threats.

This enters the area of 'sufficiently alien'. Its an interesting discussion on which Peter Singer has a lot to say, though he never uses that terminology. Basically, at what point can we justify the creation of an adverse affect on another being/object; especially given that 'consciousness' appears to be little more than a scalar illusion.

Frazzled wrote:
Humanity, like the rest of nature, is in active competition with other species. The prawns are a direct threat as they have similar or better intelligence-our primary competitive advantage. If you don't wipe them out you pen them up if you can, which is what was done.

There is certainly merit to that argument. People frequently stumble on the intentionality of it; forgetting that we intentionally pushed many different species to verge of extinction as a direct result of our own evolutionary success.

Now, you can use the same tactical ploy Cairnius has chosen to (suggesting that natural forces stop at the edge of the atmosphere). But that's just a demarcation criterion; something which inherently turns on matters aesthetics, rather than determinate logic.

Dogma wrote:Yeah, I've encountered those writers before. And I think they have some valid insight into the matter. Personally, I think the actual process was of mixed methods. Some combination of interbreeding, territorial violence, and unintentional resource deprivation.

I have no doubts that humans would have taken out any serious competition with little to no effort. Not in an action movie way, but a practical and technological way. Humans have incredible teamwork in small numbers, so a tiny but focused pack of humans could most likely take out an entire pack of neanderthals with little to no remorse for various reasons.

Of course, elimination through competition doesn't necessarily mean 'crush, kill, destroy', but you already knew that.

Why does it not though? I know that you have a point here, but I would say that any action to overtake an "opponent", especially a direct one, is an action of
"crush, kill, destroy". When there is intent it is obvious, but when you consider the repercussions for the loser, and natures (from an individualist perspective) tendency to favor the bold will bring out the "worst/best" in any species. The fact that humans have such organized fighting withing their own species should bear witness to the fact that we specialize in this kind of "natural strategy".

Now, you can use the same tactical ploy Cairnius has chosen to (suggesting that natural forces stop at the edge of the atmosphere). But that's just a demarcation criterion; something which inherently turns on matters aesthetics, rather than determinate logic.

Enter asteroid, supreme overlord beyond which we prefer to call life and intent.




This also kicks prawn ass...

Wrexasaur wrote:
I have no doubts that humans would have taken out any serious competition with little to no effort. Not in an action movie way, but a practical and technological way. Humans have incredible teamwork in small numbers, so a tiny but focused pack of humans could most likely take out an entire pack of neanderthals with little to no remorse for various reasons.

That's hard to say. Humans are very effective when working in groups, but we really don't know much about Neanderthal intelligence. Though we do know that they could have possessed linguistic faculties, and were capable of tool usage at least on par with their homo sapiens sapiens contemporaries.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Why does it not though? I know that you have a point here, but I would say that any action to overtake an "opponent", especially a direct one, is an action of
"crush, kill, destroy". When there is intent it is obvious, but when you consider the repercussions for the loser, and natures (from an individualist perspective) tendency to favor the bold will bring out the "worst/best" in any species.

A direct action, certainly. But its pretty rare for a species to be completely eliminated through direct intent. More often the desire is to remove the threat it poses, which doesn't necessarily translate into genocide. It can simply mean preparedness.

Wrexasaur wrote:
The fact that humans have such organized fighting withing their own species should bear witness to the fact that we specialize in this kind of "natural strategy".

Because a recognition of difference doesn't translate directly into the impulse to eradicate it. After all, there is no guarantee that you will win any war that you start.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Enter asteroid, supreme overlord beyond which we prefer to call life and intent.




This also kicks prawn ass...

Yep. There isn't a whole lot of difference between ELE by alien invasion, and ELE by cosmic impact.

dogma wrote:

That's hard to say. Humans are very effective when working in groups, but we really don't know much about Neanderthal intelligence. Though we do know that they could have possessed linguistic faculties, and were capable of tool usage at least on par with their homo sapiens sapiens contemporaries.

I think we can safely assume that neanderthals were explicitly "designed" to be tougher. This in itself is a positive, but the ability to rationalize and react extremely quickly (we can see evolution within one generation within humans, rough around the edges or not, we are extremely diverse, indicating a very strong gene line) would be the downfall for any direct competition; this is the category that neanderthals would most definitely fall in.

Would you want to fight a bigger, stronger, more resolute and focused version of yourself? They could be trying to eat you... versus you eating them.

Dogma wrote:
A direct action, certainly. But its pretty rare for a species to be completely eliminated through direct intent. More often the desire is to remove the threat it poses, which doesn't necessarily translate into genocide. It can simply mean preparedness.

The "kill, smash, destroy" indication is neutralized.

Genocide is not the intent for most action, especially when you consider tribal warfare. The situation I would imagine could, and I stress this, involve interspecies "breeding", but this is left entirely up to speculation. This may be a crude interpretation, but I simply cannot imagine primitive humans resorting forcefully to complete annihilation. I would on the other hand argue that they could have played an integral role in the extinction of neanderthals.

Dogma wrote:
Because a recognition of difference doesn't translate directly into the impulse to eradicate it. After all, there is no guarantee that you will win any war that you start.

There are guarantees that you will win the war that you are at the advantage in though, and this has been, most definitely, a habit of the human species.

Wrexasaur wrote:
I think we can safely assume that neanderthals were explicitly "designed" to be tougher. This in itself is a positive, but the ability to rationalize and react extremely quickly (we can see evolution within one generation within humans, rough around the edges or not, we are extremely diverse, indicating a very strong gene line) would be the downfall for any direct competition; this is the category that neanderthals would most definitely fall in.

Assuming they were eliminated by force, rather than interbreeding.

The primary difference between Neanderthal and modern Humans is their relative 'robustness'. The various theories which suppose that they possessed inferior intelligence don't have a particularly compelling based of evidence. They likely could not produce a distinct language due to physical restrictions (at least not as a rule), but that isn't necessarily the same as lacking comparable intelligence. Its also worth remembering that early Humans commonly shared similar physical difficulties with speech as Neanderthals (lacking the T-shaped muscle attachment point on the chin, which makes precise speech possible).

Wrexasaur wrote:
Would you want to fight a bigger, stronger, more resolute and focused version of yourself? They could be trying to eat you... versus you eating them.

Not really. It doesn't make sense. I would develop a means of fighting them, but wouldn't make any major attempt at doing so. Why take the risk?

Wrexasaur wrote:
The "kill, smash, destroy" indication is neutralized.

Genocide is not the intent for most action, especially when you consider tribal warfare. The situation I would imagine could, and I stress this, involve interspecies "breeding", but this is left entirely up to speculation. This may be a crude interpretation, but I simply cannot imagine primitive humans resorting forcefully to complete annihilation. I would on the other hand argue that they could have played an integral role in the extinction of neanderthals.

Ah, I understand now. I was considering the "kill,smash,destroy" in its literal (well, as literal as it can be) sense. I wouldn't render things like interbreeding, and non-cooperative competition over resources in the same category.

Wrexasaur wrote:
There are guarantees that you will win the war that you are at the advantage in though, and this has been, most definitely, a habit of the human species.

But you don't generally know you have an advantage except in those situations where war is not a correct term for the conflict. We didn't go to war with the wolves, or the gazelle. We might have done so (in allegory) against the Neanderthals (unlikely, given the state of social development at the time), but the advantages in that case are not obvious, but subtle; as evidenced by the relatively long interval between contact between Sapiens and Neanderthalensis.

dogma wrote:Assuming they were eliminated by force, rather than interbreeding.

The primary difference between Neanderthal and modern Humans is their relative 'robustness'. The various theories which suppose that they possessed inferior intelligence don't have a particularly compelling based of evidence. They likely could not produce a distinct language due to physical restrictions (at least not as a rule), but that isn't necessarily the same as lacking comparable intelligence. Its also worth remembering that early Humans commonly shared similar physical difficulties with speech as Neanderthals (lacking the T-shaped muscle attachment point on the chin, which makes precise speech possible).

Considering the simple fact that they are extinct, though to what extent we are diverse from them I do not know specifically, I would assume that we had a discernible advantage over them by means of biology alone. This is practically a pure assumption, but I think evidence bears witness to our ingenuity over theirs.

Dogma wrote:
Not really. It doesn't make sense. I would develop a means of fighting them, but wouldn't make any major attempt at doing so. Why take the risk?

Not taking that risk is most likely what our "ancestors" did. In many ways of course, some direct, and some not quite as intentional.

Dogma wrote:
Ah, I understand now. I was considering the "kill,smash,destroy" in its literal (well, as literal as it can be) sense. I wouldn't render things like interbreeding, and non-cooperative competition over resources in the same category.

As bluntly as I can put this, I am very convinced (at least on a majority of "culture" level) that "rape", or what it would stand for in this situation, has and may always be a means of domination for the human species. Even from a standpoint of success by a common term, those in our current society that commit such acts are considered demeaned themselves by it. As far as this can be perceived, I do see it as a means of attack, as indirect it could seem in some situations .

Dogma wrote:
But you don't generally know you have an advantage except in those situations where war is not a correct term for the conflict. We didn't go to war with the wolves, or the gazelle. We might have done so (in allegory) against the Neanderthals (unlikely, given the state of social development at the time), but the advantages in that case are not obvious, but subtle; as evidenced by the relatively long interval between contact between Sapiens and Neanderthalensis.

I suppose the term "war" is an inappropriate one for most any "tribal" warfare by our terms, but in previous times the acts that may have been commited by our ancient ancestors would most definitely be seen as at least a type of warfare; warfare in itself takes many forms, most of which are not physical.

I like how this thread is working out. Wrexy/Dogma, your discussion is fascinating.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Considering the simple fact that they are extinct, though to what extent we are diverse from them I do not know specifically, I would assume that we had a discernible advantage over them by means of biology alone. This is practically a pure assumption, but I think evidence bears witness to our ingenuity over theirs.

Or at the very least the relative dominance of our genes. Though it certainly bears mention that the morphological characteristics of European humans bear at least a passing resemblance to those of Neanderthalensis; lending credence to the notion of equipotent genotypes.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Not taking that risk is most likely what our "ancestors" did. In many ways of course, some direct, and some not quite as intentional.

One common trait that can be observed in virtually all species on the planet (exceptions being things like ants, bees, lemmings that Disney decides to herd off a cliff, and humans) is caution. I imagine that Neanderthals were similarly equipped, and therefore at least as able to discern the virtue of flight. That said, what might have separated us from them was the ability to perceive a situation which favored an aggressive response through our enhanced communication skills (and seemingly anomalous enjoyment of risk).

Wrexasaur wrote:
As bluntly as I can put this, I am very convinced (at least on a majority of "culture" level) that "rape", or what it would stand for in this situation, has and may always be a means of domination for the human species. Even from a standpoint of success by a common term, those in our current society that commit such acts are considered demeaned themselves by it. As far as this can be perceived, I do see it as a means of attack, as indirect it could seem in some situations.

I think that strips some of the moral force from rape. When you start including unintended, or unavoidable, consequences in a closed, competitive system the whole act seems less reprehensible as it approached inevitability. Unless I'm unclear on your meaning and you're just using "rape" as the closest useful word.

Wrexasaur wrote:
I suppose the term "war" is an inappropriate one for most any "tribal" warfare by our terms, but in previous times the acts that may have been commited by our ancient ancestors would most definitely be seen as at least a type of warfare; warfare in itself takes many forms, most of which are not physical.

I've always limited war to incidences of violence simply because the introduction of non-violent (or perhaps just non-destructive) action seems to open one to a kind Reductio argument whereby all of life is at war all the time. At which point we're really just talking about relative prosperity, or degrees of success in the omnipresent conflict.

dogma wrote:
Or at the very least the relative dominance of our genes. Though it certainly bears mention that the morphological characteristics of European humans bear at least a passing resemblance to those of Neanderthalensis; lending credence to the notion of equipotent genotypes.

I thought this picture was kinda cool, and it shows what you are talking about. Homo sapiens bear the closest resemblance to Homo neanderthalensis, it is pretty interesting to look through the information on these other cats though. From what information we can gather, and the information we have now, Homo sapiens (sapien sapien really) are very quickly evolving and adaptive creatures. Breeds varying from entire sub-species having a very precise environmental adaptation, to other sub-species being about as divers as they come, and in effect not being a literal sub-species at all. There has to be scientific names for some of the more astounding adaptations.



http://www.theage.com.au/news/Science/Skeletons-in-the-cupboard/2005/03/18/1111086008084.html
Here is the article as well, quite interesting. With this amount of diversity you would expect a bit more success, but I think that could be primarily due to enhanced intelligence and overall creativity. Have you ever seen a chimp try to make a tool beyond using a stick? Perhaps this is a bad example (usually is) but this could be something you would see in Neanderthals, where they would just stick with what works... even if it kills them off one by one.

WHY ROCK NOT SMASH NOW???

Here is another picture for a clearer view on our "family" tree.

Dogma wrote:
One common trait that can be observed in virtually all species on the planet (exceptions being things like ants, bees, lemmings that Disney decides to herd off a cliff, and humans) is caution. I imagine that Neanderthals were similarly equipped, and therefore at least as able to discern the virtue of flight. That said, what might have separated us from them was the ability to perceive a situation which favored an aggressive response through our enhanced communication skills (and seemingly anomalous enjoyment of risk).

Emotion I would surmise with reasonable confidence. Some may think that we are just smarter than many other species, which in itself is a bit obtuse, beyond being appreciably smarter than some of our "cousins" (chimps and the like) we are quite obviously more sensitive in many ways. I would call this huge gap a difference in emotion, which is also a form of intelligence that can remarkably economize communication (as it can do the opposite as well). Whereas the Neanderthals may have had a small set of words, Humans probably had many more besides that, and most likely a deeper understanding of their meaning to the pack.

Dogma wrote:
I think that strips some of the moral force from rape. When you start including unintended, or unavoidable, consequences in a closed, competitive system the whole act seems less reprehensible as it approached inevitability. Unless I'm unclear on your meaning and you're just using "rape" as the closest useful word.

I suppose PWN would work? Not too sure really, people talk about a war "raping" a country, and in that context I do think it is quite appropriate. Iraq and Afghanistan were clearly within the limits of this definition for at least a while, and might continue in that direction soon. Beyond this, I suppose dominate forcefully would be the appropriate denomination for this particular kind of term.

Seeing some of the ways that people treat each other today, and even alienate severely whilst letting go of an moral attachments they may have to one and other. Looking throughout nature, their is hardly a mammal that can hold a light to our bipolar sort of "second-society" that is lurking beneath nearly every country on this planet. Some other animals have an obvious "caste-system" but none so rigid and unyielding as we do. This could be another reason that we were simply better than the rest, a sign of good management from at least a primitive perspective. Leadership could be another reason, people clearly think quite a bit differently from one another, leading to a clear set of Alpha minds. Having a simple older knows best policy, versus strongest always decides method seems to be a pretty successful strategy among tribal societies.

Dogma wrote:
I've always limited war to incidences of violence simply because the introduction of non-violent (or perhaps just non-destructive) action seems to open one to a kind Reductio argument whereby all of life is at war all the time. At which point we're really just talking about relative prosperity, or degrees of success in the omnipresent conflict.

Mind-war? A Jedi you have become... OH CRAP STAIRS AGAIN!!! dammit .

I can only imagine how Neanderthals could have interacted, and any evidence of actual fighting would be non-indicative of any really solid point. Any successes over the Neanderthals were probably made through hunting, and possibly our ability to take in more diverse nutrition. Certainly our ability to be more creative played a vital role in our species ultimate success. In essence I think we just evolved much faster.

This does make me seriously wonder how we would handle another sentient species, and district 9 managed to put that in a particularly curious light. I would imagine that out of nothing more than curiosity, the entire world would step into help... China may have to do it first though .

mockingbirduk wrote:I'm quite convinced that the fuel collected was to power the small ship/command module/lander or whatever. Once they powered it up and got the command software running the big ship was able to move and use its transporter beam device BEFORE the 'fuel' made it to the mothership. furthermore, I'm pretty sure Christopher tells the human protagonist that they need the fuel to reach the mothership, not they need it to power to mothership.

I doubt it, considering in the end the flyer was called up to the mothership by tractor beam, not using any fuel at all.

One question I feel it raised was whether the alien society's castes are particularly friendly with one another - Chirstopher and his son, while physically weaker than the other aliens, were clearly more intelligent (or at least, massively more educated). One possible conclusion is that he's the 'captain' of the ship, but in that case, why did he not have a lot of folks working for him collecting the fuel? Just him and one other guy? Why not a big movement? My personal take on it is that the 'workers' may not be employees as much as they are semi-slaves, with no opportunity for advancement. They could even, horribly enough, be effectively cargo. If that's the case, then finding themselves suddenly freed from their bondage (no 'guards', no 'bosses') may make them an extremely dangerous group to someone in Christopher's (fomer) position, hence the need for secrecy.

M.

Yeah, that was a very cool part of the film, was Christopher hiding his intelligence from Earth, or from the rest of the prawns? We don't know, and it was things that were hinted at like that that made it a very cool movie.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Have you ever seen a chimp try to make a tool beyond using a stick? Perhaps this is a bad example (usually is) but this could be something you would see in Neanderthals, where they would just stick with what works... even if it kills them off one by one.

Ultimately we simply do not have enough knowledge of Neanderthalensis to reach a definite conclusion with respect to their demise. Its definitely an interesting topic though, right up there with religion.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Emotion I would surmise with reasonable confidence. Some may think that we are just smarter than many other species, which in itself is a bit obtuse, beyond being appreciably smarter than some of our "cousins" (chimps and the like) we are quite obviously more sensitive in many ways.

This also dovetails rather neatly into the question "What is intelligence". Not the firmest philosophical ground on which to build your metaphorical house.

Wrexasaur wrote:
I would call this huge gap a difference in emotion, which is also a form of intelligence that can remarkably economize communication (as it can do the opposite as well). Whereas the Neanderthals may have had a small set of words, Humans probably had many more besides that, and most likely a deeper understanding of their meaning to the pack.

I agree. I think one of the great tragedies of the enlightenment lies in the firm divorce of emotion from reason. They are not likely to be fully distinct entities.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Seeing some of the ways that people treat each other today, and even alienate severely whilst letting go of an moral attachments they may have to one and other. Looking throughout nature, their is hardly a mammal that can hold a light to our bipolar sort of "second-society" that is lurking beneath nearly every country on this planet.

Honestly, that may simply be a matter of scalar success (ie. there are more of us, therefore our second-societies are more complex). Wolves, for example, have a clear intra-pack hierarchy that at least mimics our own manifold social orders.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Some other animals have an obvious "caste-system" but none so rigid and unyielding as we do.

To be fair, most societies have at least some degree of mobility through merit (obviously ignoring the variable of access). There's a reason that caste-systems are a specific category of social order.

Wrexasaur wrote:
This could be another reason that we were simply better than the rest, a sign of good management from at least a primitive perspective. Leadership could be another reason, people clearly think quite a bit differently from one another, leading to a clear set of Alpha minds. Having a simple older knows best policy, versus strongest always decides method seems to be a pretty successful strategy among tribal societies.

Personally, I think the concept of meritocracy (whether realized or not) is the primary reason for humanity's evolutionary success. We have surprisingly plasticine minds, even into old age (Fraz can learn new tricks, hurrah!); something which would allow the species to adapt to new conceptual frames with seeming alacrity.

In short, Sapiens will follow once more into the breach. Neanderthalensis might follow thrice more.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Certainly our ability to be more creative played a vital role in our species ultimate success. In essence I think we just evolved much faster.

I would agree with this; possibly attaching the addendum of pure sex appeal (maybe serious, maybe not).