113
The aliens need our gold! The proof? 3.
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
113 points (98.3% liked)
InsanePeopleFacebook
2188 readers
335 users here now
Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
Sadly that is the most plausible part, for two reasons.
For one thing, machines need constant maintenance from qualified professionals, or they break down. And, once they’re broken, you have to pay for even more expensive repairs or buy a new one. Slaves, on the other hand, you can abuse almost to the point of death and they will keep functioning; they’re also somewhat self-replicating.
The second reason is why so many people want to bring slavery back: the cruelty is the point. There’s a certain mindset that really loves lording it over people; and even better if those people are so in their power that they physically/legally cannot escape. See also: people who verbally abuse wait staff.
Of course, it’s up to debate whether a truly alien lifeform would be thinking in such a human way, but it’s certainly possible.
(That being said, these people are lunatics. Douglas Adams once said, ‘Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?’ and I think that sums their insane rantings up perfectly.)
I can't argue against the cruelty part, but I would think that it would be very likely that aliens with the power to travel across interstellar distances and subjugate entire planets would have developed self-repairing technology.
Maybe there is something about gold that we don't understand yet.
Maybe its seen as preferable and moral to create and later free a new slave species (self sustaining biological robots) then to liter the universe with artificial non-intelligence
I can not recommend actually believing this stuff with no bit of proof but if you keep an open mind its not completely inconceivable.
It’s not completely inconceivable that I put an Invisible Pink Unicorn in your garage, but it’s a similarly silly thing to give credence to considering there are far richer sources of gold in our own solar system which have apparently never been mined.
That and the fact that we basically have an unbroken line of skeletons between us and our chimp-like ancestors which suggest we evolved over time like everything else on this planet, no alien slavers required.
It doesn’t matter if there is something about gold we don’t understand yet, because based on what we do know about everything else, humans evolved naturally and leprechaun aliens don’t exist.
Well i didn’t exactly look into the details of the whole conspiracy, just the general premise of why a presumed higher being may do anything,
There is a lot we don't know about our past. Homo sapiens have walked the earth for 300 000 years. For reference the oldest cave art is 60 000 years. The oldest buildings 12 000 years.
I dont like to junp ship and yell aliens at this largely unrecorded time but i do like to revel in the mystery of it.
How did people live, could there be lost empires? What knowledge and motivations did people have and lose.
If aliens where ever involved id love to know trough scientific pursuit.
I agree that our evolution is natural but i consider that for a god like in comparison species any advanced technological act could be perceived as magic or nature.
What if the aliens visiting are just a npc faction spawned in by more elusive alien simulation developers?
We have zero evidence of domesticated plants or animals before 10-12 thousand yeas BP. If there were great civilizations before that, there would be evidence in the DNA of plants and animals. There is not. The idea of a great civilization without any domestic agriculture or livestock is nonsense.
There is no room for aliens either. Not one shred of evidence.
I know people like Erich von Daniken and Graham Hancock sound appealing, but they aren't. They're also racists. Von Daniken and Hancock believe in a master white race that created everything.
Hancock:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/01/netflix-ancient-apocalypse-canceled
https://list.uvm.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A3=ind1811&L=SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE&E=8bit&P=601416&B=--------------E30651E1332C1BC529D29260&T=text%2Fhtml;%20charset=utf-8
This all comes from 19th century racist ideas, especially those of Madame Blavatsky:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Blavatsky
You are falling for racist propaganda. Please don't.
I am falling for propaganda?
That’s cute, i literally don't know who these people are and i have yet to express support for any potential narrative.
You’re falling for too much social media, at least the godwin spin in your argument alludes as such.
As a general rule one shouldn’t believe in stuff that cant be proven. And if it can be proven only a fool would choose not to agree. Can we agree on this as a baseline?
Other than that, we have to consider that we cant know what we don't know, science is the measurement of reality but can we really understand reality?
Can any argument you make continue to stand against my brain in a jar style existentialism and optimistic nihilism? Surrender to the fact that the belief in facts does not make them true and that the true goal of science isn't to answer any questions, (animals live a full life without) but to see how far we can take the art of questioning itself, exploring ourselves within the universe.
There are many angles i can weasel out on why there may be.. and why no evidence of argiculture… but that wouldn’t be the point. The point is to make you stop thinking in terms of what can’t and start thinking in terms of what can. Because honestly i feel the world needs more of that right now.
Then why should I believe your suggestion that there were cultures that existed before the Younger Dryas with zero genetic evidence of domestication of plants or animals?
There was someone who recently told me that one shouldn't believe in stuff that can't be proven.
#1 You use “previously assumed not possible” as an excuse to stop exploring the idea. Come to conclusions based on your own critical mind, not because i said you should and neither because dead archeologists #3 says you shouldn’t.
#2 You don't need to know nor believe anything in order to explore and derive knowledge from an idea or theory.
Exploring how aliens might have visited in the past : legaly distinct from : believing aliens exist ever
Re #1-
Re #2-
If there's no evidence, there's no knowledge to be derived. Also, theories have evidence and are testable. What you are talking about is a thought experiment. They're not especially useful in archaeology.
Also-
We're talking about living genetic scientists, not dead archeologists. I realize that you're part of the whole "you can't trust scientists" crowd, but that doesn't give you the right to pretend genetics doesn't exist or is some outdated idea.
I swear i am not part of any ideologists group, least of all a science denying group. I am an OG lover of science and especially have a boner for archeology.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am not nor ever will tell people to think a certain way, just warn for limiting what can be conceive by blindly trusting dull old teachings.
The fact that the nature of my message is still not obvious is proof that the problem i am seeing is a very real one. People trow science around but they don’t actually commit to scientific thought of themselves. In the age of misinformation to lager is more and more essential.
Scientific thought as absolutely no genetic evidence of domesticated animals or plants before what we believe to be the advent of agriculture? For some reason you don't think genetics tell us anything about the past.
I am not sure how many times i need to repeat i am not taking any stance or saying anyone should believe anything at all. Its getting frustrating why you want to make this into an argument.
Scientific thought as having the intention to understand , using the 5+ senses to observe the beautiful cosmos around you without judgement or bias. Then coming up with your own intelligent conclusions. You are free to use your senses to observe the conclusions of another intelligent lifeform (a scientist) but to simply copy a conclusion isn't science.
The number of things we know is much smaller then the number of things we don't know. Be open minded for the potential of the universe to amaze, thats all really. Goodbye
That is not science.
Science uses the scientific method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Sentence number two: "The scientific method involves careful observation coupled with rigorous scepticism, because cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation"
What are you trying to proof? What argument are you trying to win?
Yes, if you take that sentence completely out of context from the rest of the sentences in that summary, you don't need anything like testable hypotheses and falsifiable theories. But you do if you want to do science.
Buddy, are you ok?
That is a strange response to finding out you're not understanding the basic concept of the scientific method wherein a hypothesis has to be testable and a theory falsifiable is the cornerstone of modern science.
Literally no one is contesting any of this. At the very least i am not.
But at the same time it also ironically proofs my entire point.
This conversation wasn’t about the scientific method. It never was. I mentioned “scientific thought” which is a loan term i used specifically to set myself apart from established scientific curriculum.
Your quoting science with no relevance to what i am saying. Having to conclude you lack the rigor to work with such material. By focusing this narrow you have eliminated the entire value of philosophical tools to be used for creative scientific thought.
Nothing about sitting in a classroom or scrolling the web is a quantifiable testable an falsifiable theory. Your just relying on the information being true, which isn’t wrong, but doing so blindly isn’t right.
Go outside, touch grass. Do the science with your own brain and senses. I never told you what to believe only to open your mind a little.
Stop relying purely on other peoples conclusions yeses and nos and start giving your own conclusions and ideas especially to wilder scientific fiction and you will see talking about science actually becomes fun again.
I see, you aren't talking about science. Gotcha.
You're getting upset every time I don't rely purely on your conclusions.
I am in fact talking about science sorry if that went over your head.
I am genuinely curious to know what you have understood my conclusions to be.
I wont further distract you so go ahead, i really want to know because i dont feel like any of my points where received as they should have.
Well one of your conclusions seems to be that science can involve not using the scientific method. And you're just wrong. That's magic. Alchemy. Religion. But not science.
“One of”
Oh i provided multiple conclusions?? The plot thickens, how actually intriguing. I am really trying hard to be as obvious and literal as i can and yet people read stuff that not there.
But no i have not expressed such opinions on the scientific method which i do respect much more then your interpretation of it (nothing personal, I promise)
I believe every belief i have held has always remained true to its principles (as far as i can be aware) so no this was never a point to be changed.
It does shed some light on the crux of our debate which is apparently about what is defined as the foundation of science.
You see the scientific method was summarized in the 17th century. Science is recorded to be much older.
Personally i found that post education i relate much more to the ancient greek ideas of science. Particularly in using philosophy to expand once thinking but also seeing the mathematics in the world around me.
What is my interpretation of the scientific method?
And "science" before the scientific method was not science. It was magic and alchemy and religion. It was not tested. Experiments were not repeated to test them. Things were taken on literal faith.
And you can relate to the Ancient Greeks, but they were wrong. About pretty much everything.
The way you describe the scientific method it may as well be a magical spell.
It is a really awesome summary of sensible ideas and a notably agreement of prominent western intellectuals. But to disregard anything before it is a very strong and not at all scientific opinion.
Imagine trying to tell your math teacher that pythagoras was to stupid to double test their ideas or your doctor that hippocrates was but a religious nutjob.
Imagine going to a thousand year old building and being utterly blind for the intens mathematical knowledge coded within your surroundings because you don't believe “quality science” has been invented yet.
From where do you derive the faith to trust in all the science that is done ever since?
I don't trust people since then much more then those from before which is why i vouch personal experimentation, using your own senses and internal logic to come to conclusions. For me those just happen to align largely with platonism. Which has though mechanics that appear just as relevant to quantum mechanics now as it did for psychologically when i first externally heard about them.
Cool. The Ancient Greeks were still wrong about pretty much everything.
Full mask off trolling are we now?
Or really that pitty about being unable to hold yourself in an argument you just have to trow a tantrum.
I mean i don’t want to go this low but you didn’t even try reply intelligently so what else am i to describe this
“Cool. The Ancient Greeks were still wrong about pretty much everything.”
Print this on something for your philosophy teacher to hang on their wall, they will unironically love it, i am”
Nope. Responding to something silly you said by pointing out that the so-called Ancient Greek scientists you like were wrong on virtually every explanation of how the universe worked is not trolling.
How are you the same person.
On one hand wielding “the scientific method” like its the literal bible that shan't be questioned and it somehow being relevant to us not having found archeological evidence of ancient agriculture.
In the same breath you dismiss the entirety of contributions that were brought by the ancient greek as a whole. An entire culture and people with so much rich history?
I can only conceive your just trying to use the very little personal opinion i gave to diss is. In which case at least diss on plato specifically (or decartis cause i mentioned liking him to)
Come on, it like your not even trying anymore.
You can praise the contributions of the Ancient Greeks, but that doesn't change the fact that they were wrong about practically everything.
Nothing you can possibly say will make their conceptions of the universe correct. Democratus will never be correct about atoms no matter how much you want him to be. Similarly, Pythagoras will never be right about beans.
I am not praising them actually, not anymore then i do the scientific method. They were biased humans just like usz But they layed the fundamental groundwork modern science works on. I mentioned them cause there well regarded as foundational in science and plato just resonates with me. i remain just as much a skeptic and of the opinion one need to come to their own conclusions.
And if you want to label and entire culture on some Mistakes may i point to our much more modern friend columbus?
For me its not about their results but the style of thinking. Like i said the platonian way of viewing the world aligns with my natural way of experiencing the universe.
My message is to be of an open and critical mind. To use thoughts in an intentional structural and creative way to uncover new ground. Oh well.
This sure looks like praise to me:
But hey, if you're going to just lie about things, I can see why you reject modern science. And yes, you do reject it.
your reading comprehension and inability to see beyond your narrow viewpoint is depressing.
I can only conclude it doesn't matter how carefully i spell out my intend, you will just assume your own interpretation over it.
This is no basis for a respectful conversion. Though to be fair you attitude has been consistently rude. I should have taken the hint and left long ago.
Sorry, insulting me is not going to change the fact that you said you didn't praise them when that's exactly what you did.
Boohoohoo someone on the internet is being mean to me after i called them a liar for not putting the same emphasis on the vocabulary of my choosing and was genuinely disrespectful and rude for the entire conversation.
Maybe reflect on how you spend the last 24 hours passionately arguing against what is essentially a very generic PSA: "With an open mind, anything is possible." followed with a healthy dose of "Philosophy is useful in tangent with science" Which honestly i am not inventing the wheel here i was initially just trying to have good vibes.
None of that will change the fact that you said you didn't praise them when you did praise them either. Sorry.
No amount of you repeating your narrow minded interpretation will make it less childish.
This isn't a gotcha but you once again embarrassing yourself by admitting you fail to see the nuance in my words.
We can go back and forth but we will keep ending up on this spot. My point of view is literally to exotic for you to understand my sincerity.
Go to bed, touch grass. Go play some video games. Thats what i am gonna do.
You can get angry, you can insult, you can try anything you want, but you still said you didn't praise them when you did.
what do you mean "believe in"? lots of people believe in economic theories that can't tbe proven. some people believe in the goodness of mankind. everyone has some sort of myth (or likely many) that help them understand the world, regardless of how true or provable they are.
The way i use “believing” would be they regard it as truth.
There is some wiggle room there with agnostic believing making it distinct from “knowing” where you don’t acknowledge room for any self error.
I believe in science and i will use scientific statements as proof of truth but i cant say that i know science is truth because i know science has historically been wrong many times.