Ethical question

Jul 24, 2009 22:38

If aliens were going to destroy the Earth unless you gave them 10% of the Earth's children, would you?

P.S. Jack Harkness is a bastard.

television, ethics, science fiction

Leave a comment

tesinth July 28 2009, 04:07:53 UTC
If the aliens could destroy the earth then they certainly don't need our permission to take 10% of our kids. Of course, destroying the earth could be a bluff, after all, why would they destroy something they want (kids?). It would be more logical to enslave all of humanity and take the kids as they wish (I promise not to work as an consultant for the aliens).

Chances are that with our current technology we'd be screwed anyhow; we haven't gotten to the next planet over yet, something tells me a civilization that has mastered interstellar navigation probably has some decent weaponry as well (or else they never would have evolved to that point). Anyways, we're still pretty much were we started, who the hell put me in charge anyways? Taoists are not suppose to worry about the what-ifs, only the what-is. If this somehow becomes a what-is situation, after taking everything in and if both options still appear equally valid/disturbing, I would probably remove myself from the decision making process, flip a coin, heads they get the kids, tails the world and everyone on it ends.

Wasn't there a Greek story about something like this (a monster that the villagers sent a few of their kids into its lair as an offering so that the monster wouldn't attack the village)? Also, while I've only read one chapter ("The Baby-Eating Aliens") into it, this link seems sorta relevant: http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/

Reply

nontacitare July 28 2009, 19:00:54 UTC
If the aliens could destroy the earth then they certainly don't need our permission to take 10% of our kids.

Our atmosphere is deadly to the aliens. They need our help to appear on the Earth at all, and then only in confined conditions. What they can do is poison our atmosphere from outer space, which would of course would also kill the kids.

who the hell put me in charge anyways?
Everyone's passing the buck. The UN gives it to the US; the US gives it to its largest university (OSU); OSU gives it to the science department; the science department is deadlocked and since you're doing maintenance in their building, they turn to you to be the tie-breaker.

("The Baby-Eating Aliens")
I stayed up way too late reading this story. Thanks for the link; it was fascinating.

Reply

tesinth July 29 2009, 02:37:41 UTC
One flaw in your first assertion is that if the aliens can survive in the near-vacuum of space, they should be able to do just fine in our atmosphere; if a ship's hull can survive in space it should also protect the occupants from any toxic (to them) gasses in our air. Of course, they won't be coming down in their mother-ships but rather smaller vessels, but it is logical to assume that these ships will offer the same protection in one form or another (structurally or some weird force-field type thing). Another nail in the "they can't come down here" coffin is that they probably would have developed at least a basic (advanced by our standards) understanding and usage of robotics, potentially allowing their drones to come down and capture our children if they in fact were unable to. (Seriously not trying to question the overall scenario you proposed, just trying to avoid any huge possible logical flaws such as occurred in the movie 'Signs', Yeah, a frickin' alien civilization is going to come across the galaxy to invade a world that is 70% covered by something that is toxic to them and deal with a predominate life form that is composed of about 75% of something that is toxic to them!!)

All that aside, getting back to the point at hand, the College of Pharmacy is probably the last place OSU would look to answer this question. ;) Still, if it came down to me I would be obliged to think of wu wei and act (or not) accordingly. While giving them a tenth of our children for peace may at first appear to be the path of least resistance, the internal and external turmoil created by such a decision could easily eclipse the perceived horror of them destroying the world.

If this were to happen right now, I would probably try to buy some time so our scientists can learn at least a little about the aliens and hopefully what their weaknesses are. Then the game would shift to me telling them that we would give them the children while trying to plant a Trojan horse in the doomed kids or use the time to aim our hopefully still-relevant weaponry towards the mother-ship (most of our and the Russian's ICBMs should be able to obtain at least a low-Earth orbit. Even if this failed (they were out of range of our primitive weapons or protected themselves from any pathogens that the Trojan kids might have been infected with, at least mankind will be erased from the galactic history book, most humans would probably find a certain peace in knowing that they went out on their own terms, they refused to be subjugated or enslaved by another species. (and yes I know that even if our initial surprise attack defeated the initial wave, more alien ships would be close behind and our future as a species would be questionable at best).

Glad you liked the story I linked to, I read the rest of it during my lunch today, while there were some things I didn't like (like the constant reference to the PD), it did make me think about things that I probably wouldn't have before which is always a sign of good fiction.

Reply

nontacitare July 29 2009, 03:15:00 UTC
One flaw in your first assertion is that if the aliens can survive in the near-vacuum of space, they should be able to do just fine in our atmosphere; if a ship's hull can survive in space it should also protect the occupants from any toxic (to them) gasses in our air. I wondered about that while watching the show. It's also possible the aliens didn't come down to Earth because they didn't want to be targets; they knew they were safe in their space ships.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up