Subject: Neutral Aliens? Date: 12 Jan 1995 17:04:21 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Lines: 114 Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com Message-ID: <3f4915$plo@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Reply-To: density4@aol.com (Density 4) This file is cross-posted from a discussion forum on AOL with the permission of the author. For anyone interested, you can reach him at CNIROB@aol.com. I found the perspective of great interest. ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Neutral Aliens?" Two opposing interpretations of the abductors' intentions vis-a-vis the human race have been proposed and discussed at length here over the last several weeks: "friendly" and "unfriendly". What about the possibility that they are neither -- that the abducting aliens are neutral? That they are neither friendly nor unfriendly towards earthlings? Consider the following possible "big picture" explanation for the whole abduction phenomenon, based on six possible assumptions. (There are lots of possible alternative assumptions. These are just the starting point for possible discussion.) First, the abductors are coming from a very old "gene-poor" race, which is threatened with extinction due to its inability to reproduce. They are, thus, in need of a "genetic overhaul". Secondly, they have become aware, through their galactic travellings, of the planet Earth, and that the race which inhabits it is a young race which is biologically viable and genetically rich -- and perhaps at least partially "genetically compatible" with their own biological structure. Third, in visiting Earth, they have become aware -- via some technology that allows them to "see the future" -- of impending disastrous events which will occur on this planet and largely destroy Earth's civilizations. Fourth, earthlings are technologically so backward, relatively, that they can not successfully resist the aliens' goal of stealing gene samples from us to carry out their "genetic overhaul". Fifth, the genetic material being taken from us is being used to create a biologically viable hybrid race (more similar to themselves than to us, perhaps). Sixth (and more conjectural), the hybrid race will be placed onto this planet. If the first four, or more, of the above assumptions are correct, would it not also be correct to suggest that the aliens are in a situation where they have asked themselves a question somewhat similar to the following: "Is taking $50 (i.e., genetic material) from the pocket of a man who will be dead in an hour (i.e., the human race) morally equivalent to stealing?" Or, even more complex: "Is it stealing to take $50 from the pocket of a man who will soon be dead, when that $50 (genetic material) can save "our" (i.e., the aliens') own life?" It is hard to argue against either of the "immoral" conclusions suggested by these two hypothetical situations. It suggests that the robber would be convinced almost completely of the "morality" of his acts. Additional observations: Were I in the assumed situation the aliens may be in -- where I needed the "$50" from a dying man to save my own life -- I am quite certain I would prefer to **not** be friends with the dying man -- to know as little about the man as possible, except where his billfold was located and how to get into it. I would try to make my "robbery" with as little ruckus as possible -- not even letting the dying man know that was being robbed, if at all possible. If the dying man were to become aware that he was being robbed, I would not enjoy discussing the reasons for the robbery with the dying man -telling him that he would soon be dead, and that the robbery would nonetheless help me to survive -- given my own existential angst. And it is hard to imagine that the dying man -- previously unaware of his sad prognosis -- would want to know of it. All in all, friendship between the robber and the dying man is not desired by the robber, for it can have no future; but enmity is also not called for, because the robber can take what he wants without resistance from the dying man. Neutrality vis-a-vis the victim seems to derive from the above assumptions. Thus, the concepts of positive or negative intent by the abductors vis-a-vis their abductees may be irrelevant to what is going on. The abduction phenomenon may be occurring within a "neutral setting" outside the boundaries of morality as we know or expect to find it. (The entire preceding discussion depends most critically, perhaps, on the concept that the Earth is about to experience massive destruction. Thus, the only issue of importance to us may be the question: "Is the picture of our impending demise revealed to us by the aliens a valid prediction of what **will** occur, or is it just a suggestion of what **may** occur?" Personally, I have a great deal of trouble believing the repeated claims made by abductees that various destructive events are about to occur. I have no compelling reasons for not believing in this possibility, it's mostly just my gut reaction to. But one could make the observation that the stories of destruction are so varied as to exactly what will occur, and when, that there seems to be no predictive value to them. And then there is the question as to why they would reveal this information. As a salve to ease their consciences which are guilty over what they are doing, even though it is necessary for their survival? Unfortunately, so much of the aliens' behavior in the abduction reports is consistent with my assumptions being real, that I have trouble intellectually justifying my own skepticism about the destruction stories. Can anyone provide additional arguments against the validity of these "predictions"? But if we succeed in discarding the destruction stories, how can we understand the entirety of the abduction phenomenon, what new global explanation for its existence would you propose?)