What the heck do we do now?

[Firaxin]

W I P E
O U T
T H E
X E N O S

FOR THE EMPEROR

Memes aside, why do you think this? Do you not recognize the Xenos as persons? If so, why would that be the case? Do you not hold the primary criteria of personhood to be sapience?

They're probably just memeing, it's not necessary to consider their answer as serious.

[Sicaris]

W I P E
O U T
T H E
X E N O S

FOR THE EMPEROR

Memes aside, why do you think this? Do you not recognize the Xenos as persons? If so, why would that be the case? Do you not hold the primary criteria of personhood to be sapience?

No, they are life forms. Humanity is simply superior however, especially in this case. They don’t need to be wiped out, but they might need some “guidance” from humanity, and work as “indentured servants”.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Memes aside, why do you think this? Do you not recognize the Xenos as persons? If so, why would that be the case? Do you not hold the primary criteria of personhood to be sapience?

They're probably just memeing, it's not necessary to consider their answer as serious.

I mean, I'm answering the primary question (That is, a planet designated for colonization has an as of yet unknown fledgling Xeno civilization) in a serious manner.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Memes aside, why do you think this? Do you not recognize the Xenos as persons? If so, why would that be the case? Do you not hold the primary criteria of personhood to be sapience?

No, they are life forms. Humanity is simply superior however, especially in this case. They don’t need to be wiped out, but they might need some “guidance” from humanity, and work as “indentured servants”.

Guidance, yes. We shall teach them our value system (Hopefully something vaguely similar to Mohist thought), and remove harmful socio-cultural practices from their society. However, forced labor would not be acceptable in this situation.

[Firaxin]

They're probably just memeing, it's not necessary to consider their answer as serious.

I mean, I'm answering the primary question (That is, a planet designated for colonization has an as of yet unknown fledgling Xeno civilization) in a serious manner.

Yeah, but they may not be. When you try to make them take it seriously they just don't. They'll continue responding with meme answers because comedy is more entertaining than the actual thought. They might take it seriously later, when they're in a different mood, or they'll just stop responding, either way the conversation improves.

[Sicaris]

I mean, I'm answering the primary question (That is, a planet designated for colonization has an as of yet unknown fledgling Xeno civilization) in a serious manner.

Yeah, but they may not be. When you try to make them take it seriously they just don't. They'll continue responding with meme answers because comedy is more entertaining than the actual thought. They might take it seriously later, when they're in a different mood, or they'll just stop responding, either way the conversation improves.

You seem rather angry. Problem with 40K?

[Firaxin]

Yeah, but they may not be. When you try to make them take it seriously they just don't. They'll continue responding with meme answers because comedy is more entertaining than the actual thought. They might take it seriously later, when they're in a different mood, or they'll just stop responding, either way the conversation improves.

You seem rather angry. Problem with 40K?

No, just never enjoyed 40k and it doesn't help it's a stale, overused meme, that I've heard enough of for the rest of my life.

[Maroza]

Memes aside, why do you think this? Do you not recognize the Xenos as persons? If so, why would that be the case? Do you not hold the primary criteria of personhood to be sapience?

No, they are life forms. Humanity is simply superior however, especially in this case. They don’t need to be wiped out, but they might need some “guidance” from humanity, and work as “indentured servants”.

Good old colonialism and conquest, some things truly never change. Should we form a clan to keep the xenos from getting to uppity or have you come up with a final solution to the xeno problem? Either way I got some great ideas for some costumes we could wear.

[Purpelia]

Land somewhere far from their current location and branch out as quickly as possible. Avoid any contact with the aliens. Commit genocide once the resources, manpower and firepower make it safe and possible.

I would do this because:

* It's a colony ship. The crew's mission is to colonize other planets.
* 24 people have already wasted a significant portion of their lives for this mission. They don't have to tolerate anyone's bullshit.
* The universe rightfully belongs to the human race.

I disagree with the last point, as well as your conclusion (i.e. xenocide). Sure, Human cultural domination of the cosmos would be desirable, but our Xeno brothers and sisters must be allowed to live. We will teach them our way of life and they will be integrated as full citizens into our growing interstellar empire.

Must? You MUST nothing except die. Everything else is up to our good will.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

I disagree with the last point, as well as your conclusion (i.e. xenocide). Sure, Human cultural domination of the cosmos would be desirable, but our Xeno brothers and sisters must be allowed to live. We will teach them our way of life and they will be integrated as full citizens into our growing interstellar empire.

Must? You MUST nothing except die. Everything else is up to our good will.

And do you not act with good will as often as possible?

[Idiocarasia]

has no one yet had the idea of: capturing and experimenting on them, Xenos

1st of all. outside of international waters, we make the ethical rules
2nd if they live off of the poisonous foods a dissection may help with figuring out how to neutralize and eat prior edible foods
3rd they might be edible
4th imagine the implications of xeno-biology research back in the earth
5th while captured you may learn the language and get all the knowledge they have

THE POSSABILITYS

[Purpelia]

Must? You MUST nothing except die. Everything else is up to our good will.

And do you not act with good will as often as possible?

Nope. If I did I'd be dead, starving and generally ruined by now.

Seriously. Survival it self necessitates greed and cruelty. The job you hold could have belonged to someone else. The food you eat could have fed them. The very air you breathe is consumed irreversibly and taken from all of us. If you want to be selfless commit suicide. Otherwise just have fun with life.

[-Ocelot-]

Land somewhere far from their current location and branch out as quickly as possible. Avoid any contact with the aliens. Commit genocide once the resources, manpower and firepower make it safe and possible.

I would do this because:

* It's a colony ship. The crew's mission is to colonize other planets.
* 24 people have already wasted a significant portion of their lives for this mission. They don't have to tolerate anyone's bullshit.
* The universe rightfully belongs to the human race.

I disagree with the last point, as well as your conclusion (i.e. xenocide). Sure, Human cultural domination of the cosmos would be desirable, but our Xeno brothers and sisters must be allowed to live. We will teach them our way of life and they will be integrated as full citizens into our growing interstellar empire.

Why coexist with xenos when you can replace them with more humans?

[Ethel mermania]

I disagree with the last point, as well as your conclusion (i.e. xenocide). Sure, Human cultural domination of the cosmos would be desirable, but our Xeno brothers and sisters must be allowed to live. We will teach them our way of life and they will be integrated as full citizens into our growing interstellar empire.

Why coexist with xenos when you can replace them with more humans?

We dont kill every cow we see now do we?

[Audioslavia]

Seriously. Survival it self necessitates greed and cruelty. The job you hold could have belonged to someone else. The food you eat could have fed them. The very air you breathe is consumed irreversibly and taken from all of us. If you want to be selfless commit suicide. Otherwise just have fun with life.

Jesus, Purpelia. I know your intent isn't to actually suggest Swaglord commit suicide, but please think before you write shit like this.

Cheers,

Audio

[Karu Nadu]

If such aliens taste like chameleons or frogs, I suggest we eat them.

[United States of Natan]

Well for starters, its absurd that satellites and rovers didn't pick up on it sooner; it's not difficult to scan for signs of life or photograph settlements. Also, it's ridiculous that you don't have enough fuel for a return trip. Why would you not bring enough fuel to return in case of an emergency? It's also illogical that you can't even hear each other. Perhaps their vocal abilities might not be capable of reproducing human sounds and visa versa; but odds are you can hear each other.

That said, it's a large planet. I'd find a place to settle far enough away from the native population, and avoid disturbing them, with the occasional observation mission. When they're a little more intelligent, we'll start communication attempts. When we manage to make successful communications, we'll start sharing our non-deadly technology to bring them to a 21st century level (but not as advanced as us).

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

And do you not act with good will as often as possible?

Nope. If I did I'd be dead, starving and generally ruined by now.

Seriously. Survival it self necessitates greed and cruelty. The job you hold could have belonged to someone else. The food you eat could have fed them. The very air you breathe is consumed irreversibly and taken from all of us. If you want to be selfless commit suicide. Otherwise just have fun with life.

Please pardon me if I seem rude, but in regards to the underlined portion of your statement: have you heard of plants by any chance?

Jokes aside, survival often necessitates altruism and cooperation in social animals like humans. Even from the point of view of "selfish" genes, evolutionary biologists have shown how altruistic behavior evolved by giving a selective advantage to genes, where organisms helped relatives spread their genes even at a cost of their own. Also, a population of greedy and cruel beings would not be stable. So thus, your claim that survival necessitates greed and cruelty is false.

Also, from a less biological and more philosophical level, choosing to not apply personhood and thus ethical consideration to other sapient beings because "they're not human" is unfounded, in my view.

For the record, if I had to summarize the fundamentals of my ethical framework:

In the Form of Formal Argumentation
Premise: (You act as though) Your physical and psychological needs have intrinsic value, and you work to meet them
Premise: The differences between the “other” and the “self/kin” are negligible*
Conclusion: (You should act as though) Everybody's needs have intrinsic value, and you should work to meet them as best as possible when practical (i.e. one should act with unconditional compassion)

In essence, I hold that "pure" egoism and "pure" nihilism are rather arbitrary means of answering "what-to-do-next", in that oneself is not fundamentally different from others, and therefore one should treat others with the same dignity/love with which one treats oneself. From this basis, further moral truths can be discovered. In somewhat more detail, if we argue morality in the real world is about addressing the problem of what-to-do-next, then it removes the focus on individuals to more general statements. If moral choices are actually about decision-making, then the application of the idea "intrinsic value is impartial" does generate compelling reasons to care about the experiences of other people and factor them impartially into our decisions, because we interact with them in our daily lives. Their experiences and thus choices do matter, because they have consequences for our decisions. I'm not sure there is utility in rejecting impartiality, for the self, for others, and for society. I maintain that this argument evidently follows from the application of impartiality to the broader definition of morality, which is to say that the Good is thus an independent and objective abstraction based on caring about the experiences of other people and factoring them impartially into our decisions for the benefit of all (i.e. "unconditional compassion", or jian'ai according to the Mohist philosophers), and that moral human behavior would be in accord with it.

I believe that a quote from Mozi sums it up rather nicely:

If people regarded other people’s states in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own state to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. If people regarded other people’s cities in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own city to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. And so if states and cities do not attack one another and families do not wreak havoc upon and steal from one another, would this be a harm to the world or a benefit? Of course one must say it is a benefit to the world.

*My reasoning for embracing such an abstract meta-ethical axiom (that is to say, that the differences between the “other” and the “self/kin” are negligible, or more broadly the phenomenon of empathy and the concept of impartiality) is that I realized knowledge in the domains of mathematics, logic, and especially morality are made by the same process that gives us scientific knowledge. Namely creativity and criticism. This is true even though the nature of investigation is very different in all these domains (mathematics/logic, for example, being axioms and proofs, logical consistency and completeness). Furthermore, scientific explanations necessarily employ abstract objects and quantities that are not directly experienced but essential parts of the explanation. Also, if abstractions are all just in the mind (just the way we represent regularities in the outside world), then all we've done is shuffle the problem of abstraction in the outside world to abstractions in our own minds. Not to mention that unobservable universals are necessary components of explanatory knowledge, whether scientific or in another domain. By saying there are no abstractions, the "pure" egoist or the "pure" nihilist thus implies that there are only subjective illusions and that only meaningless world of subatomic particles exists. But that also means rejecting that experience, the self, and indeed the very concept of personhood exists, and thus the importance and primacy of your own sense of good. My reasoning for embracing such an abstract meta-ethical axiom (that is to say, that the differences between the “other” and the “self/kin” are negligible, or more broadly the phenomenon of empathy and the concept of impartiality) is that I realized knowledge in the domains of mathematics, logic, and especially morality are made by the same process that gives us scientific knowledge. Namely creativity and criticism. This is true even though the nature of investigation is very different in all these domains (mathematics/logic, for example, being axioms and proofs, logical consistency and completeness). Furthermore, scientific explanations necessarily employ abstract objects and quantities that are not directly experienced but essential parts of the explanation. Also, if abstractions are all just in the mind (just the way we represent regularities in the outside world), then all we've done is shuffle the problem of abstraction in the outside world to abstractions in our own minds. Not to mention that unobservable universals are necessary components of explanatory knowledge, whether scientific or in another domain. By saying there are no abstractions, the "pure" egoist or the "pure" nihilist thus implies that there are only subjective illusions and that only meaningless world of subatomic particles exists. But that also means rejecting that experience, the self, and indeed the very concept of personhood exists, and thus the importance and primacy of your own sense of good. By abstract quantities, I mean things like energy and entropy, as well as physical constants like the charge of the electron. For an example, look no further to the concept of heat. We know that heat doesn't require material transfer. The transfer of heat energy depends on the reduction of a difference in distribution of some physical quantity, like the redistributing of translational movements and molecular vibrations between the molecules of one object and another. These differences between systems are objective parts of the explanation. Thermodynamics describes high level physical processes, like the tendency towards greater disorder, but these have not yet been derived from simpler descriptions of interactions between particles. It is not clear if such a reduction is possible as an explanation. My point about abstractions is that they are essential parts of explanations (including physics) that appear to be semi-autonomous to the lower level description, yet still being objective. They are not only simpler but provide better understanding than even a hypothetical computer simulating all the fundamental laws to predict what would happen would produce (without denying determinism). However, we're not really talking about physics, but moral values. It is very unclear how these have any basis in the "hard" physical world. But nevertheless, I argue that they form essential parts of our best explanations for different levels of description, in other words, they appear to be nonphysical but objective. Values, such as the distinction of right and wrong appear in our moral theories that are conjectured to address real problems, and so we must count them as objective if these theories survive. In essence, if you accept the existence of the "self" and reject abstractions as having any independent objective reality (like moral values, except what one arbitrarily imposes), then you must also reject the premise that the self or personhood exists, a concept which is patently absurd, because they are abstractions too.

TL;DR: I think that the Good is an independent and objective abstraction based on caring about the experiences of other people and factoring them impartially into our decisions for the benefit of all (i.e. "unconditional compassion"), and that moral human behavior would be in accord with it.

[Karu Nadu]

Well for starters, its absurd that satellites and rovers didn't pick up on it sooner; it's not difficult to scan for signs of life or photograph settlements. Also, it's ridiculous that you don't have enough fuel for a return trip. Why would you not bring enough fuel to return in case of an emergency? It's also illogical that you can't even hear each other. Perhaps their vocal abilities might not be capable of reproducing human sounds and visa versa; but odds are you can hear each other.

That said, it's a large planet. I'd find a place to settle far enough away from the native population, and avoid disturbing them, with the occasional observation mission. When they're a little more intelligent, we'll start communication attempts. When we manage to make successful communications, we'll start sharing our non-deadly technology to bring them to a 21st century level (but not as advanced as us).

Natan is an alien.

It's been confirmed.

[United States of Natan]

Well for starters, its absurd that satellites and rovers didn't pick up on it sooner; it's not difficult to scan for signs of life or photograph settlements. Also, it's ridiculous that you don't have enough fuel for a return trip. Why would you not bring enough fuel to return in case of an emergency? It's also illogical that you can't even hear each other. Perhaps their vocal abilities might not be capable of reproducing human sounds and visa versa; but odds are you can hear each other.

That said, it's a large planet. I'd find a place to settle far enough away from the native population, and avoid disturbing them, with the occasional observation mission. When they're a little more intelligent, we'll start communication attempts. When we manage to make successful communications, we'll start sharing our non-deadly technology to bring them to a 21st century level (but not as advanced as us).

Natan is an alien.

It's been confirmed.

Welp. Time to go back to the mothership and report my findings.