As an avid Math minor and Math lover, I am drawn to Math because it frequently intertwines with greater Philosophical ideas. One area where theoretical Math translates almost exactly the same as in practice is Game Theory. The concept of Nash Equilibrium very easily encapsulates why we turn to fear and weapons rather than love and dialogue at every point of tension. Even when both parties may simultaneously gain from choosing differently, Math says we will stick with our weapons in the lack of an existing relationship. As a skeptic of pure goodness and a believer in Math's unvarying nature permeating the universe and beyond, I believe turning to fear is not just a human instinct but a universal one.
As a fellow Trekkie, I appreciate your mention of the stark contrast between the familiar humanoids of Star Trek with the heptapods we see in Arrival. Villeneuve’s aliens certainly exude a strangeness that we do not see enough of, however they are only one of a countless number of plausible portrayals of extraterrestrial life. One might argue that a spacefaring species must be morally superior and work together without avarice to reach the technological heights seen with the heptapods, but it is equally likely that they could be split into factions and advance themselves scientifically out of competition for dwindling resources. It seems naïve to suggest that either explanation is more probable, considering the vastness of our universe as well as the depths of time.
One of my favorite aspects of this film is its accurate portrayal of humanity's response to the sudden arrival of extraterrestrial life. Arrival (2016) excellently exposes the many cracks in our fragile global society, such as language barriers, differing alliances, and vastly different moral and ethical ideologies. As my classmates have noted, the film's message is more hopeful than how events might unfold in real life. However, this didn't bother me and actually added to the emotional weight of the story. The film reminds me of Interstellar in a few ways: a sci-fi journey that invites viewers to suspend their disbelief, only to reveal a grounded and human tale of love and connection.
Humans in Sci-Fi media tend to take self-preservation at varying levels of concern, which is akin to how the world would be if it were put in this situation. In ‘Arrival’, many humans were unwilling to take the extra steps to create the contact needed to fully communicate with the heptapods. This is because they were more worried about their well-being, but even after Louise and Ian have proved that it is safe to be in the area without the hazmat suit, the rest of the crew still wears them every time, including when they place the bomb. This barrier was no longer doing anything useful, but its presence created a sense of security for the humans for a brief period of interaction.
I should add that the first two of C.S. Lewis' works in his "space trilogy" (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength) show aliens in a thought-provoking light; just as do the aliens in Madeleine L'Engle's Chairos series (A Wrinkle in Time, A Wind in the Door, Swiftly Tilting Planet). But those aliens are not our primary focus of the story line so much as the human response to the situations we see them in.
Denis Villeneuve once again produced a masterpiece with Arrival, creating a world the audience feels like they are living in just like he did with Dune: Part 2. Humanities response to extraterrestrials was depicted with accuracy, however the main focus of the movie was the internal human relationships stressed during the panic. Several countries trusted the larger goal of sharing information to keep humanity safe, while others turned their back with fear and greed. Covid 19 coincidentally followed the film a few years later, with society's response to an external threat depicting the lessons Arrival foreshadowed. We saw nations uniting to spread resources, as well as our own president placing blame on a foreign country to push political agendas and power.
I've found other Alien portrayals in media often gloss over cultural bias, assuming universal communication, or establishing it quickly. However, I found it critical to my liking of this film that it didn't do this. As on Earth, the same words can have opposite meanings. So when imagining aliens with entirely different senses, of course, that is going to be one of the first and most crucial steps to overcome. Their communication might involve pheromone messages, telepathy, or even a future-seeing circle language. This vast communication gap that fuels both fear of the unknown and fascination with a different intelligence is what drew me to this film and led me to want to further explore how communication differences can shift our world's intercommunication.
In response to your question regarding whether alien life would share humanity’s moral and ethical frame of reference, I think it is very possible that alien life could be even slightly different and end up with an entirely different set of values. In a TV show called Invincible, there is a race of bug-like humanoids called the Thraxans. Their biology determines that a Thraxan’s life-span is roughly nine months, which influences their emotions and thoughts related to family, life, and regret. This difference of time spent in a life changes the Thraxans into a very hopeful species in a very hopeless universe, showing that, based on a different outlook, they have developed an even more matured ethical and moral philosophy.
One question Dr. M posed that resonated with me was how humans would respond if we encountered aliens on our planet. I believe that Arrival gives a pretty close model to my guess, but it would not be as hopeful. It would spread chaos and panic leading to looting and riots as shown in the film, and I believe we would try to make contact peacefully with the aliens at first in most places of the world as long as they did not outright attack us. However, I feel not all places such as militaristic countries would be so receptive. Moreover, I think a “General Shang” scenario would be much more likely and imminent, since some people in places of power in less open/responsive communities may lash out quickly against something so unknown like aliens.
I find Denis Villeneuve’s depiction of first contact in Arrival congruent with what human history tells us. When the Europeans settled in North America, they were an alien people that could be communicated with, was more technologically advanced, and had a relatively open-arms policy. Despite this, the Native Americans tended to extend the olive branch to these strange new people. However, the urge to assimilate overcomes, and tensions rise and crash together when these two disparate societies try to share space. If aliens initiated contact in some way other than invasion, and didn’t live on Earth, I think that we would have a peaceful yet defensive relationship with them, as we have in the past.
In today's society, humanity is considered a small bubble within the universe. We discover life right beneath our noses that we went centuries without knowing. These new species continue to question the forms of life that we know today. We as humans often let our egos get in the way of rational reason and often describe forms of life that cannot be described through the lens of the human eye. We continuously find new forms of life in the deep sea that are incredibly diverse and our ocean is just a sliver compared to the universe. Life outside Earth is somewhere that we have yet to find or will ever find.
Although I haven’t explored the Star Trek franchise, I share a fascination with the challenge of communicating with worlds unlike our own. Recently, I read Andy Weir’s _Project Hail Mary_, a novel I recommend. It explores understanding life forms vastly different from us and collaborating to solve shared existential threats. I believe it's unlikely that Earth is home to the only life in the universe. It took centuries to connect people on Earth and we still struggle to communicate values regularly. I believe it is important to consider how we would define ourselves as a species, and how we could try to be a more understanding collective.
If humans were to encounter extra terrestrial beings, I believe the exchange would not be productive like in Arrival. Humans would be very cautious with their approach and would need incentive to take on the risk if the interaction takes a turn for the worse. The innate fear humans have towards foreign beings would shine through, especially at the first instance of perceived harm. I feel that humans are proud of how far we have come as a society and the view towards extraterrestrial beings is that they have special powers and thus, pose a threat toward humans.
As I watched the humans in Villeneuve's “Arrival” behave out of fear and almost destroy themselves in the process, it brought up feelings of anger and resentment. Unfortunately, I think that is extremely accurate to how humans would respond to the appearance of extraterrestrials, especially on our planet. With the strict divisions of countries and the need for land ownership present amongst almost all civilizations on Earth, I think an alien species would be viewed as a threat to our hold on earth’s resources. However, if the extraterrestrials were found to be weaker than humans, I think world leaders would find a way to exploit them by conducting experiments on them, taking over their home country, or forcing them to work for us.
Talk of life outside of Earth is very prevalent in this day and age. We believe that since the universe is so vast, there must be life outside, but our knowledge of humanity’s near-zero possibility of life occurring counters this. This paradox is what makes the possibility of aliens so fascinating. Whether humans encounter aliens on this planet or another, our perception of our place in the universe will entirely change. The discovery of extraterrestrial life would challenge the idea of our unique existence and throw our population into existential chaos. If we discovered that we were not the only intelligent lifeform, humanity would be forced to confront its identity and purpose. Whether or not we make contact with these otherworldly beings, we can still hope for, or fear, this discovery which would impact our understanding of life itself.
One way to gain insight into extraterrestrial life is by considering Earth's diverse species. For example, ants and bees cooperate for their colony’s benefit rather than individual gain, prioritizing the collective over personal desires. This trait has allowed them to thrive. If we encountered an extraterrestrial species, their technological advancements might indicate a similar or more extreme collective focus. Rather than being driven by self-preservation, reproduction, or territorial expansion, they might rely on unity and mutual support. Observing such beings could prompt humanity to reconsider its individualistic nature, encouraging greater cooperation and moral evolution. In Arrival, the aliens' presence similarly pushes humanity to work together, suggesting a profound shift in our approach to life and ethics.
The possibility that extraterrestrial life might remain opaque to us, despite the best efforts of our top scientists, linguists, and cultural anthropologists, is an idea that I have never considered. Their ethical frameworks, shaped by unique experiences and cultures, might be incomprehensible to us. If an alien species shares no common ethical or cognitive ground with us, our attempts to understand their actions might indeed be fruitless. While this doesn't mean they are unknowable in every respect, the idea of meaningful connection might remain elusive. This reinforces the need for open-mindedness and interdisciplinary approaches. I believe it is important to reflect on these ideas as we attempt to connect with other peoples around the globe. Although we may not face the immense cultural gap we might with extraterrestrials, it is equally important to be open-minded and patient when trying to understand other cultures.
Unfortunately, the world we live in today is one of fear but that is changing. Every day, especially in the United States, there are plenty of reasons to be afraid, increased rate of violent crimes, gun violence, hate speech, and an increasingly polarized Populus. However, as the younger generations are growing up we can see more empathy and love from them than ever before and it's already making an impact. For example, the massive string of pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses which have pressured some universities to divest and end their implicit contribution to the genocide in Gaza. While the world is a fearful one, I believe the human race has the capacity to love without fear.
If complex extraterrestrial life exists somewhere in the universe, it is highly unlikely that they closely resemble terrestrial life due to the countless variables and conditions that cause life to evolve. However, many works of pop culture, such as Star Trek, Star Wars, have created the idea that most complex extraterrestrial life is humanoid and that they show human traits and emotions. While these features create more interesting stories as the audience can more closely relate to the characters, it is also an unrealistic representation of extraterrestrial life. A more realistic approach from Denis Villeneuve’s “Arrival” depicts alien life with features distinct from terrestrial life, however, the behavior and intelligence exhibited by the heptapods still allows the audience to understand and relate to them.
I think that if humans were to encounter extraterrestrials on this planet or another, the first step would definitely be making a friendly attempt to communicate with them, as human beings growing up in a civilized society. After all, according to human understanding, it is unwise to use violence against a group that may be more technologically advanced. Moreover, if communication is not a problem, the purpose of the other party becomes very important. Since either side is crossing a great distance to another planet, the purpose must be profound. If aliens arrive on Earth, humans will probably do what they can to meet their needs. After all, maintaining good neighborliness throughout the galaxy is beneficial for co-survival.
You ask if choosing love and trust over fear and anger makes us lose our humanity and become more vulnerable to ruin. While it is human nature to revert to fear for protection, I believe our ability to consciously choose love in times of fear distinguishes us from other animals. Instinctively, any species prioritizes survival in stressful or unknown situations. However, actively opposing these primitive behaviors and learning to thrive in unusual circumstances exemplifies what humanity has accomplished. This conscious choice, which might give another species, perhaps even extraterrestrial, an advantage, defines humanity rather than destroys it.
Today, my sister and I were in a car accident, and I can't stop wondering if a small change in our actions beforehand might have altered the outcome. This thought led me to wonder how things might unfold if time were non-linear, as depicted in the 2016 film Arrival. The film suggests that there is a certain beauty in embracing suffering consciously, rather than trying to avoid it; however, can this philosophy be argued when it involves real harm to people? I don't have the answers, but I do know that if I could perceive all points in time simultaneously, I would have warned my sister about the other car.
If aliens were to arrive on Earth, it is unknown whether they would share the same moral values as humans. This uncertainty highlights how we perceive our own culture. Our fear of aliens stems from our ignorance of their reasoning and influences. The real fear is not their actions but our lack of understanding of the motives behind them. Even more frightening is the possibility that an alien visit would require technological knowledge superior to ours. Whether they come as attackers or passive observers, like in "Arrival," our fear is not mainly of the aliens themselves but that their advanced knowledge might grant them a higher level of moral understanding-or a complete lack of it. An understanding that is entirely dependent on whether or not the aliens will allow us to.
Humanities distinct traits include technology, complex language, and self awareness. These are only able to be found in humans on earth. Dolphins, bees, and apes have complex ways of communicating and can convey a multitude of different emotions and messages, but their communication is not complex the same way humans can discuss hypothetical, theoretical, and abstract concepts. If extraterrestrial life exists, I find it doubtful that they will have the same complex communications that humans on earth have. It is far more likely that life outside the earth is unicellular or simple multicellular organisms similar to fungi.
Extraterrestrial life captivates our imagination because it is presumed to transcend our human-centric understanding of knowledge. However, we often project our own ideologies onto these beings. Science fiction films about aliens illustrate this paradox: while these creatures arrive in spacecraft made of unknown materials and possess abilities beyond our comprehension, such as perceiving time non-linearly, they are often depicted as humanoid and interact in familiar ways. If alien life truly exceeds our epistemological frameworks, their behaviors and motivations would likely escape our concepts of ethics and morality. They might not display overt violence or seek symbiotic relationships for survival, as evolution and self-preservation are distinctly human concepts. I argue that Aliens will never arrive on Earth because curiosity, conquests, and societal connections are all human concepts.
Extraterrestrials cannot be expected to share an ethical frame of reference with human society due to the vast differences possible between the species. Each planet has its own atmosphere, environments, biomes and resources, likely sharing little to no similarities to Earth. The instinct of survival is the one characteristic in organisms that I believe can be shared regardless of the planet, but due to the differences between planets and species, an extraterrestrial's survival instincts cannot be expected to match those of terrestrial life. We cannot begin to understand what alien survival would entail and what ethical theories they would have to concoct in order to survive peacefully as individuals, groups or whole species. Therefore, we cannot hold extraterrestrials to the same ethical standard that humans abide by.
Dr Marchbanks, you raise great questions this RUclips lecture about aliens. Does fear set us up for aggression when we encounter aliens? There are so many directions to go with your provocative questions: 1) One line of inquiry would be to look at the "aliens" we have already met--a number of highly intelligent mammals that live with us on the planet. a) Those top-tier intelligent and predatory species (e.g., Bengal tigers in the Indian sub-continent, cougars in the New World, Orcas in the open ocean) we kill unless we can manage to turn them into entertainment (circuses, zoos, carnivals). If there are exceptions, I'd like to know which species they are. b) Many highly intelligent and peaceful species (e.g., elephants in India and SE Asia, work horses and race horses in the New World), we subjugate and force to work for us. When their upkeep is more expensive than their work value, they are killed for food (primarily for domestic pets) or abandoned. Some are hard to exploit (e.g., whales), so we either ignore them, talk about protecting them (usually with no measurable success), and ignore them. 2) Since the “aliens” in SciFi novels and films are without exception products of a human mind, isn’t it possible that the fear there is really an aversion to ourselves? Fear (and aggression) against humans of different cultures? One need to look only at some familiar cultural interfaces (French/German, USA/Mexico, Japan/Korea, Hindu/Muslim, Tutsi/Hutu) to see decades of warfare over the centuries. The "hand' in "The Peacemaker" is clearly not so much an alien being as it is some sort of metaphor, but the aliens in Ursula K. LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness are anything but metaphorical, and the same goes for the aliens in James Blish's Case of Conscience. Zenna Henderson's "People" series have aliens I cannot believe in, but they do stimulate my thinking about what it means to be human (and in her novels they do suffer for being different). 3) Your student audiences might not be willing to concede this point, but one absolutely non-fiction example we have of human encounters with non-human aliens is with angels. All the literature from many cultures shows people invariably greatly afraid when they encounter angels. (“Fear not!” Is the standard angelic greeting.) And the massive gulf between Homo sapiens and the various angel sub-species that we know about does not lead us to have delusions of superiority or commit acts of aggression. Rather, there is a mind-numbing paralysis and often fainting. The most common defense against such encounters is denial, and to a certain extent we all share in that. Who worries about leprechauns or fairies (though the oldest literature about them shows them to be quite frightening). Goethe's "Erlkönig" is not a tame bedtime-story being. And as a part of our denial we pretty them up and tame their images into nursery rhymes. Robert Louis Stephenson's fairies in "A Child's Garden of Verse" are tiny, powerless, and mildly amusing. But most people will agree that such aliens are human constructs. But the angel that appeared to Mary was (and is) no literary construct; and the angel that wars against the powers of darkness in Daniel is anything but silly. I don’t know of any SciFi author who has based her or his alien encounters on such real aliens and our most common visceral reaction. Even when the fictional alien is vastly superior (Sauron, Predator, Cyborg, etc.), authors show humans to be plucky and aggressive. Even the Nephilim were not opposed by people when they had intercourse with human women; and that required divine intervention in the form of a flood. "Turn about is fair play": What do you think? Mike
Professor Winn, thank you for these incisive observations. Always a pleasure! I wonder whether orcas constitute an exception case to your valid reflections concerning our usual response to smart and intimidating animals: we once sought to turn these particular killers into friendly performers, but have recently become so appalled at the way this cramps their physical and emotional health that Sea World has been forced to remove the animals from their troupe. If only we could manage to reexamine our fear of sharks too, as most of them pose no threat to humans. The whole shark fin soup debacle in southeast Asia is depressing. Your point about scary aliens in sci-fi fiction seems generalizable to all sorts of monsters that actually mirror back parts of ourselves we fear. Zombies represent the fear of debilitating contagion and antisocial personality disorders, perhaps, while vampires provide less a symbol for viral disease than a useful figure for our discomfort with powerful sexual desires. Reacting with wonder instead of fear appears to require our being so overwhelmed by the size and power of an extraterrestrial other that any aggressive reaction would seems utterly futile. We see such a reaction in Arthur C. Clarke’s Rendezvous with Rama, but most storytellers seems to assume that conflict and struggle with an unknown force make for a more compelling narrative than an . . . interstellar ride along. I love your point about the powerful exception of Biblical angels who, while humanoid in appearance and unarmed in any traditional way, somehow signal an immense power and authority that humans cannot help but recognize-even when, like Gideon (Judges 6), they question the divinity of a being they intuitively recognize as otherworldly.
As an avid Math minor and Math lover, I am drawn to Math because it frequently intertwines with greater Philosophical ideas. One area where theoretical Math translates almost exactly the same as in practice is Game Theory. The concept of Nash Equilibrium very easily encapsulates why we turn to fear and weapons rather than love and dialogue at every point of tension. Even when both parties may simultaneously gain from choosing differently, Math says we will stick with our weapons in the lack of an existing relationship. As a skeptic of pure goodness and a believer in Math's unvarying nature permeating the universe and beyond, I believe turning to fear is not just a human instinct but a universal one.
Have you read Oxford mathematician Edwin Abbott's "Flatland" (revised 1884)? The entire plot is geometric math and fun!
As a fellow Trekkie, I appreciate your mention of the stark contrast between the familiar humanoids of Star Trek with the heptapods we see in Arrival. Villeneuve’s aliens certainly exude a strangeness that we do not see enough of, however they are only one of a countless number of plausible portrayals of extraterrestrial life. One might argue that a spacefaring species must be morally superior and work together without avarice to reach the technological heights seen with the heptapods, but it is equally likely that they could be split into factions and advance themselves scientifically out of competition for dwindling resources. It seems naïve to suggest that either explanation is more probable, considering the vastness of our universe as well as the depths of time.
One of my favorite aspects of this film is its accurate portrayal of humanity's response to the sudden arrival of extraterrestrial life. Arrival (2016) excellently exposes the many cracks in our fragile global society, such as language barriers, differing alliances, and vastly different moral and ethical ideologies. As my classmates have noted, the film's message is more hopeful than how events might unfold in real life. However, this didn't bother me and actually added to the emotional weight of the story. The film reminds me of Interstellar in a few ways: a sci-fi journey that invites viewers to suspend their disbelief, only to reveal a grounded and human tale of love and connection.
Humans in Sci-Fi media tend to take self-preservation at varying levels of concern, which is akin to how the world would be if it were put in this situation. In ‘Arrival’, many humans were unwilling to take the extra steps to create the contact needed to fully communicate with the heptapods. This is because they were more worried about their well-being, but even after Louise and Ian have proved that it is safe to be in the area without the hazmat suit, the rest of the crew still wears them every time, including when they place the bomb. This barrier was no longer doing anything useful, but its presence created a sense of security for the humans for a brief period of interaction.
I should add that the first two of C.S. Lewis' works in his "space trilogy" (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength) show aliens in a thought-provoking light; just as do the aliens in Madeleine L'Engle's Chairos series (A Wrinkle in Time, A Wind in the Door, Swiftly Tilting Planet). But those aliens are not our primary focus of the story line so much as the human response to the situations we see them in.
Denis Villeneuve once again produced a masterpiece with Arrival, creating a world the audience feels like they are living in just like he did with Dune: Part 2. Humanities response to extraterrestrials was depicted with accuracy, however the main focus of the movie was the internal human relationships stressed during the panic. Several countries trusted the larger goal of sharing information to keep humanity safe, while others turned their back with fear and greed. Covid 19 coincidentally followed the film a few years later, with society's response to an external threat depicting the lessons Arrival foreshadowed. We saw nations uniting to spread resources, as well as our own president placing blame on a foreign country to push political agendas and power.
I've found other Alien portrayals in media often gloss over cultural bias, assuming universal communication, or establishing it quickly. However, I found it critical to my liking of this film that it didn't do this. As on Earth, the same words can have opposite meanings. So when imagining aliens with entirely different senses, of course, that is going to be one of the first and most crucial steps to overcome. Their communication might involve pheromone messages, telepathy, or even a future-seeing circle language. This vast communication gap that fuels both fear of the unknown and fascination with a different intelligence is what drew me to this film and led me to want to further explore how communication differences can shift our world's intercommunication.
In response to your question regarding whether alien life would share humanity’s moral and ethical frame of reference, I think it is very possible that alien life could be even slightly different and end up with an entirely different set of values. In a TV show called Invincible, there is a race of bug-like humanoids called the Thraxans. Their biology determines that a Thraxan’s life-span is roughly nine months, which influences their emotions and thoughts related to family, life, and regret. This difference of time spent in a life changes the Thraxans into a very hopeful species in a very hopeless universe, showing that, based on a different outlook, they have developed an even more matured ethical and moral philosophy.
One question Dr. M posed that resonated with me was how humans would respond if we encountered aliens on our planet. I believe that Arrival gives a pretty close model to my guess, but it would not be as hopeful. It would spread chaos and panic leading to looting and riots as shown in the film, and I believe we would try to make contact peacefully with the aliens at first in most places of the world as long as they did not outright attack us. However, I feel not all places such as militaristic countries would be so receptive. Moreover, I think a “General Shang” scenario would be much more likely and imminent, since some people in places of power in less open/responsive communities may lash out quickly against something so unknown like aliens.
I find Denis Villeneuve’s depiction of first contact in Arrival congruent with what human history tells us. When the Europeans settled in North America, they were an alien people that could be communicated with, was more technologically advanced, and had a relatively open-arms policy. Despite this, the Native Americans tended to extend the olive branch to these strange new people. However, the urge to assimilate overcomes, and tensions rise and crash together when these two disparate societies try to share space. If aliens initiated contact in some way other than invasion, and didn’t live on Earth, I think that we would have a peaceful yet defensive relationship with them, as we have in the past.
In today's society, humanity is considered a small bubble within the universe. We discover life right beneath our noses that we went centuries without knowing. These new species continue to question the forms of life that we know today. We as humans often let our egos get in the way of rational reason and often describe forms of life that cannot be described through the lens of the human eye. We continuously find new forms of life in the deep sea that are incredibly diverse and our ocean is just a sliver compared to the universe. Life outside Earth is somewhere that we have yet to find or will ever find.
Although I haven’t explored the Star Trek franchise, I share a fascination with the challenge of communicating with worlds unlike our own. Recently, I read Andy Weir’s _Project Hail Mary_, a novel I recommend. It explores understanding life forms vastly different from us and collaborating to solve shared existential threats. I believe it's unlikely that Earth is home to the only life in the universe. It took centuries to connect people on Earth and we still struggle to communicate values regularly. I believe it is important to consider how we would define ourselves as a species, and how we could try to be a more understanding collective.
If humans were to encounter extra terrestrial beings, I believe the exchange would not be productive like in Arrival. Humans would be very cautious with their approach and would need incentive to take on the risk if the interaction takes a turn for the worse. The innate fear humans have towards foreign beings would shine through, especially at the first instance of perceived harm. I feel that humans are proud of how far we have come as a society and the view towards extraterrestrial beings is that they have special powers and thus, pose a threat toward humans.
As I watched the humans in Villeneuve's “Arrival” behave out of fear and almost destroy themselves in the process, it brought up feelings of anger and resentment. Unfortunately, I think that is extremely accurate to how humans would respond to the appearance of extraterrestrials, especially on our planet. With the strict divisions of countries and the need for land ownership present amongst almost all civilizations on Earth, I think an alien species would be viewed as a threat to our hold on earth’s resources. However, if the extraterrestrials were found to be weaker than humans, I think world leaders would find a way to exploit them by conducting experiments on them, taking over their home country, or forcing them to work for us.
Talk of life outside of Earth is very prevalent in this day and age. We believe that since the universe is so vast, there must be life outside, but our knowledge of humanity’s near-zero possibility of life occurring counters this. This paradox is what makes the possibility of aliens so fascinating. Whether humans encounter aliens on this planet or another, our perception of our place in the universe will entirely change. The discovery of extraterrestrial life would challenge the idea of our unique existence and throw our population into existential chaos. If we discovered that we were not the only intelligent lifeform, humanity would be forced to confront its identity and purpose. Whether or not we make contact with these otherworldly beings, we can still hope for, or fear, this discovery which would impact our understanding of life itself.
One way to gain insight into extraterrestrial life is by considering Earth's diverse species. For example, ants and bees cooperate for their colony’s benefit rather than individual gain, prioritizing the collective over personal desires. This trait has allowed them to thrive. If we encountered an extraterrestrial species, their technological advancements might indicate a similar or more extreme collective focus. Rather than being driven by self-preservation, reproduction, or territorial expansion, they might rely on unity and mutual support. Observing such beings could prompt humanity to reconsider its individualistic nature, encouraging greater cooperation and moral evolution. In Arrival, the aliens' presence similarly pushes humanity to work together, suggesting a profound shift in our approach to life and ethics.
The possibility that extraterrestrial life might remain opaque to us, despite the best efforts of our top scientists, linguists, and cultural anthropologists, is an idea that I have never considered. Their ethical frameworks, shaped by unique experiences and cultures, might be incomprehensible to us. If an alien species shares no common ethical or cognitive ground with us, our attempts to understand their actions might indeed be fruitless. While this doesn't mean they are unknowable in every respect, the idea of meaningful connection might remain elusive. This reinforces the need for open-mindedness and interdisciplinary approaches. I believe it is important to reflect on these ideas as we attempt to connect with other peoples around the globe. Although we may not face the immense cultural gap we might with extraterrestrials, it is equally important to be open-minded and patient when trying to understand other cultures.
Unfortunately, the world we live in today is one of fear but that is changing. Every day, especially in the United States, there are plenty of reasons to be afraid, increased rate of violent crimes, gun violence, hate speech, and an increasingly polarized Populus. However, as the younger generations are growing up we can see more empathy and love from them than ever before and it's already making an impact. For example, the massive string of pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses which have pressured some universities to divest and end their implicit contribution to the genocide in Gaza. While the world is a fearful one, I believe the human race has the capacity to love without fear.
If complex extraterrestrial life exists somewhere in the universe, it is highly unlikely that they closely resemble terrestrial life due to the countless variables and conditions that cause life to evolve. However, many works of pop culture, such as Star Trek, Star Wars, have created the idea that most complex extraterrestrial life is humanoid and that they show human traits and emotions. While these features create more interesting stories as the audience can more closely relate to the characters, it is also an unrealistic representation of extraterrestrial life. A more realistic approach from Denis Villeneuve’s “Arrival” depicts alien life with features distinct from terrestrial life, however, the behavior and intelligence exhibited by the heptapods still allows the audience to understand and relate to them.
I think that if humans were to encounter extraterrestrials on this planet or another, the first step would definitely be making a friendly attempt to communicate with them, as human beings growing up in a civilized society. After all, according to human understanding, it is unwise to use violence against a group that may be more technologically advanced. Moreover, if communication is not a problem, the purpose of the other party becomes very important. Since either side is crossing a great distance to another planet, the purpose must be profound. If aliens arrive on Earth, humans will probably do what they can to meet their needs. After all, maintaining good neighborliness throughout the galaxy is beneficial for co-survival.
You ask if choosing love and trust over fear and anger makes us lose our humanity and become more vulnerable to ruin. While it is human nature to revert to fear for protection, I believe our ability to consciously choose love in times of fear distinguishes us from other animals. Instinctively, any species prioritizes survival in stressful or unknown situations. However, actively opposing these primitive behaviors and learning to thrive in unusual circumstances exemplifies what humanity has accomplished. This conscious choice, which might give another species, perhaps even extraterrestrial, an advantage, defines humanity rather than destroys it.
Today, my sister and I were in a car accident, and I can't stop wondering if a small change in our actions beforehand might have altered the outcome. This thought led me to wonder how things might unfold if time were non-linear, as depicted in the 2016 film Arrival. The film suggests that there is a certain beauty in embracing suffering consciously, rather than trying to avoid it; however, can this philosophy be argued when it involves real harm to people? I don't have the answers, but I do know that if I could perceive all points in time simultaneously, I would have warned my sister about the other car.
I'm so sorry to hear about the accident, Emily. I hope you're both recovering swiftly from whatever physical trauma you experienced.
If aliens were to arrive on Earth, it is unknown whether they would share the same moral values as humans. This uncertainty highlights how we perceive our own culture. Our fear of aliens stems from our ignorance of their reasoning and influences. The real fear is not their actions but our lack of understanding of the motives behind them. Even more frightening is the possibility that an alien visit would require technological knowledge superior to ours. Whether they come as attackers or passive observers, like in "Arrival," our fear is not mainly of the aliens themselves but that their advanced knowledge might grant them a higher level of moral understanding-or a complete lack of it. An understanding that is entirely dependent on whether or not the aliens will allow us to.
Humanities distinct traits include technology, complex language, and self awareness. These are only able to be found in humans on earth. Dolphins, bees, and apes have complex ways of communicating and can convey a multitude of different emotions and messages, but their communication is not complex the same way humans can discuss hypothetical, theoretical, and abstract concepts. If extraterrestrial life exists, I find it doubtful that they will have the same complex communications that humans on earth have. It is far more likely that life outside the earth is unicellular or simple multicellular organisms similar to fungi.
Extraterrestrial life captivates our imagination because it is presumed to transcend our human-centric understanding of knowledge. However, we often project our own ideologies onto these beings. Science fiction films about aliens illustrate this paradox: while these creatures arrive in spacecraft made of unknown materials and possess abilities beyond our comprehension, such as perceiving time non-linearly, they are often depicted as humanoid and interact in familiar ways. If alien life truly exceeds our epistemological frameworks, their behaviors and motivations would likely escape our concepts of ethics and morality. They might not display overt violence or seek symbiotic relationships for survival, as evolution and self-preservation are distinctly human concepts. I argue that Aliens will never arrive on Earth because curiosity, conquests, and societal connections are all human concepts.
Extraterrestrials cannot be expected to share an ethical frame of reference with human society due to the vast differences possible between the species. Each planet has its own atmosphere, environments, biomes and resources, likely sharing little to no similarities to Earth. The instinct of survival is the one characteristic in organisms that I believe can be shared regardless of the planet, but due to the differences between planets and species, an extraterrestrial's survival instincts cannot be expected to match those of terrestrial life. We cannot begin to understand what alien survival would entail and what ethical theories they would have to concoct in order to survive peacefully as individuals, groups or whole species. Therefore, we cannot hold extraterrestrials to the same ethical standard that humans abide by.
Dr Marchbanks, you raise great questions this RUclips lecture about aliens. Does fear set us up for aggression when we encounter aliens? There are so many directions to go with your provocative questions:
1) One line of inquiry would be to look at the "aliens" we have already met--a number of highly intelligent mammals that live with us on the planet.
a) Those top-tier intelligent and predatory species (e.g., Bengal tigers in the Indian sub-continent, cougars in the New World, Orcas in the open ocean) we kill unless we can manage to turn them into entertainment (circuses, zoos, carnivals). If there are exceptions, I'd like to know which species they are.
b) Many highly intelligent and peaceful species (e.g., elephants in India and SE Asia, work horses and race horses in the New World), we subjugate and force to work for us. When their upkeep is more expensive than their work value, they are killed for food (primarily for domestic pets) or abandoned. Some are hard to exploit (e.g., whales), so we either ignore them, talk about protecting them (usually with no measurable success), and ignore them.
2) Since the “aliens” in SciFi novels and films are without exception products of a human mind, isn’t it possible that the fear there is really an aversion to ourselves? Fear (and aggression) against humans of different cultures? One need to look only at some familiar cultural interfaces (French/German, USA/Mexico, Japan/Korea, Hindu/Muslim, Tutsi/Hutu) to see decades of warfare over the centuries. The "hand' in "The Peacemaker" is clearly not so much an alien being as it is some sort of metaphor, but the aliens in Ursula K. LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness are anything but metaphorical, and the same goes for the aliens in James Blish's Case of Conscience. Zenna Henderson's "People" series have aliens I cannot believe in, but they do stimulate my thinking about what it means to be human (and in her novels they do suffer for being different).
3) Your student audiences might not be willing to concede this point, but one absolutely non-fiction example we have of human encounters with non-human aliens is with angels. All the literature from many cultures shows people invariably greatly afraid when they encounter angels. (“Fear not!” Is the standard angelic greeting.) And the massive gulf between Homo sapiens and the various angel sub-species that we know about does not lead us to have delusions of superiority or commit acts of aggression. Rather, there is a mind-numbing paralysis and often fainting.
The most common defense against such encounters is denial, and to a certain extent we all share in that. Who worries about leprechauns or fairies (though the oldest literature about them shows them to be quite frightening). Goethe's "Erlkönig" is not a tame bedtime-story being. And as a part of our denial we pretty them up and tame their images into nursery rhymes. Robert Louis Stephenson's fairies in "A Child's Garden of Verse" are tiny, powerless, and mildly amusing. But most people will agree that such aliens are human constructs. But the angel that appeared to Mary was (and is) no literary construct; and the angel that wars against the powers of darkness in Daniel is anything but silly.
I don’t know of any SciFi author who has based her or his alien encounters on such real aliens and our most common visceral reaction. Even when the fictional alien is vastly superior (Sauron, Predator, Cyborg, etc.), authors show humans to be plucky and aggressive. Even the Nephilim were not opposed by people when they had intercourse with human women; and that required divine intervention in the form of a flood.
"Turn about is fair play": What do you think?
Mike
Professor Winn, thank you for these incisive observations. Always a pleasure!
I wonder whether orcas constitute an exception case to your valid reflections concerning our usual response to smart and intimidating animals: we once sought to turn these particular killers into friendly performers, but have recently become so appalled at the way this cramps their physical and emotional health that Sea World has been forced to remove the animals from their troupe. If only we could manage to reexamine our fear of sharks too, as most of them pose no threat to humans. The whole shark fin soup debacle in southeast Asia is depressing.
Your point about scary aliens in sci-fi fiction seems generalizable to all sorts of monsters that actually mirror back parts of ourselves we fear. Zombies represent the fear of debilitating contagion and antisocial personality disorders, perhaps, while vampires provide less a symbol for viral disease than a useful figure for our discomfort with powerful sexual desires. Reacting with wonder instead of fear appears to require our being so overwhelmed by the size and power of an extraterrestrial other that any aggressive reaction would seems utterly futile. We see such a reaction in Arthur C. Clarke’s Rendezvous with Rama, but most storytellers seems to assume that conflict and struggle with an unknown force make for a more compelling narrative than an . . . interstellar ride along.
I love your point about the powerful exception of Biblical angels who, while humanoid in appearance and unarmed in any traditional way, somehow signal an immense power and authority that humans cannot help but recognize-even when, like Gideon (Judges 6), they question the divinity of a being they intuitively recognize as otherworldly.