Something That Occurred To Me...
Dec. 29th, 2005 01:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
magicaddict...as I sat and watched Signs for the second time in as many weeks. Warning - this is a diatribe on philosophy, if you're going to get bored, don't bother.
I was once again rejoicing in the fact that I was watching an alien movie where the majority of people didn't think it was a hoax, where the paranoid military were in fact right, and I didn't have to spend half the film screaming at the world that they're ignorant fucks with narrow minds. It was also a rarity to find one (in this day and age, since we've become "enlightened" from the times of the B-movie) in which the alien race is overtly hostile. Independence Day did it, but IC it had everyone guessing - which meant that those crying wolf were ignored because people wanted to believe they were peaceful. This annoys me - not sure why. Maybe that if they were peaceful, they would have popped the hatch and said hi, rather than blown up the Empire State Building. Maybe it's that.
This then got me on to the question of why and how the aliens in Signs (and indeed, alien landings in general) caused responses in the way they did. People claim "we hate what we do not understand", and on the surface, such a statement would claim to explain what was being asked. However, I'm not sure I agree wholeheartedly with it. It is possible that it is true, but I feel there is more to it than that. Where does the fear come into it? Is it even included at all?
I think the statement can be broken down into two, with fear in the middle of them. First, however, the statement itself must be addressed before I can suggest amendments to it.
It is true that there instances of loathing that which is beyond us - first-year particle theoretics springs to my mind - but surely if the human race did so on a general basis, there would be no discoveries, no innovation, and no-one would ever ask "why?" It is not a case of hating, more of being wary, unsure, and unable to show the arrogance that is inherent in us as humans whether we like it or not. Perhaps some people - the more outwardly arrogant - would claim to hate it for that, but there aren't enough of those people to speak for rest of the world, and neither would or should it let them.
The question then turns to whether or not we hate what we fear, of which there are far more examples. The persecution of the Jews under Hitler could be given in example, where the populace was taught to fear the "dirty", "money grabbing", "child molesting" Jew and an atmosphere of hate spontaneously erupted around them (history buffs, I make no claim of knowing hard facts - I'm going on what I've learned. If it's wrong, please tell me so I don't do it again). This was not a result of misunderstanding, but of fear.
It could be said to function as a defence mechanism to the human psyche - in order to conquer the fear, the mind belittles its source until it is a joke, an object of ridicule. It is not to be laughed at, however - it is to be defeated, and such things that had caused fear must involve an element of dislike on the part of the conqueror to achieve. This is not some honourable contest with handshakes before commencing, this is scratching an itch. No-one likes a scary itch.
If we do not automatically hate what we do not understand, but we may well hate what we fear, the final question to tie things up is whether or not we fear what we do not understand - which would cause the original statement to be true, though only via amendments. This I think is far more reasonable, and it provides the means by which some people would accept an alien landing where others would not.
In the same way that we may feel unease, or wariness, at being unable to comprehend something, if the something is big enough it would probably be perfectly reasonable to feel scared. Small occurrences are not enough to cause fear, and may instead go towards causing hate (scratch that scary itch), but the encroachment of another race of beings from above, and the automatic realisation that in order to have mastered casual spaceflight, the race they are dealing with must be far in advance of our own, is such a huge occurrence that it may well cause an element of fear. It is, again, this may well factor that filters things around nicely.
The filter functions as "Many people fear what they do not understand, and many people hate what they fear". You therefore have three types of people that spontaneously group up when the aliens arrive, working on the assumption that no-one fully understands what is going on.
1. People who do not understand, and who do not fear. These are the ones who stand underneath the ships with placards saying hello. They could be viewed either as ignorant, stupid, or innocent. They are also the ones who feel that "something is wrong with what is going on". Always a minority, them.
2. People who fear what they do not understand, but do not hate it. These are the ones who hide in the basement until everything blows over, or simply claim it to be a hoax and go about their lives as normal, then blame the government for not keeping them informed.
3. People who fear what they do not understand, and hate it. These are the military and the slightly eXtreme people who want to blast it out of the sky before it even turns up.
I would claim that the original statement, while not exactly wrong, is too general to explain the reactions of people during an alien landing. Adding the element of fear in there splits things up into demographics you normally see in films, and that I would expect to see if it were ever to happen for real.
Which would you fit into?
I was once again rejoicing in the fact that I was watching an alien movie where the majority of people didn't think it was a hoax, where the paranoid military were in fact right, and I didn't have to spend half the film screaming at the world that they're ignorant fucks with narrow minds. It was also a rarity to find one (in this day and age, since we've become "enlightened" from the times of the B-movie) in which the alien race is overtly hostile. Independence Day did it, but IC it had everyone guessing - which meant that those crying wolf were ignored because people wanted to believe they were peaceful. This annoys me - not sure why. Maybe that if they were peaceful, they would have popped the hatch and said hi, rather than blown up the Empire State Building. Maybe it's that.
This then got me on to the question of why and how the aliens in Signs (and indeed, alien landings in general) caused responses in the way they did. People claim "we hate what we do not understand", and on the surface, such a statement would claim to explain what was being asked. However, I'm not sure I agree wholeheartedly with it. It is possible that it is true, but I feel there is more to it than that. Where does the fear come into it? Is it even included at all?
I think the statement can be broken down into two, with fear in the middle of them. First, however, the statement itself must be addressed before I can suggest amendments to it.
It is true that there instances of loathing that which is beyond us - first-year particle theoretics springs to my mind - but surely if the human race did so on a general basis, there would be no discoveries, no innovation, and no-one would ever ask "why?" It is not a case of hating, more of being wary, unsure, and unable to show the arrogance that is inherent in us as humans whether we like it or not. Perhaps some people - the more outwardly arrogant - would claim to hate it for that, but there aren't enough of those people to speak for rest of the world, and neither would or should it let them.
The question then turns to whether or not we hate what we fear, of which there are far more examples. The persecution of the Jews under Hitler could be given in example, where the populace was taught to fear the "dirty", "money grabbing", "child molesting" Jew and an atmosphere of hate spontaneously erupted around them (history buffs, I make no claim of knowing hard facts - I'm going on what I've learned. If it's wrong, please tell me so I don't do it again). This was not a result of misunderstanding, but of fear.
It could be said to function as a defence mechanism to the human psyche - in order to conquer the fear, the mind belittles its source until it is a joke, an object of ridicule. It is not to be laughed at, however - it is to be defeated, and such things that had caused fear must involve an element of dislike on the part of the conqueror to achieve. This is not some honourable contest with handshakes before commencing, this is scratching an itch. No-one likes a scary itch.
If we do not automatically hate what we do not understand, but we may well hate what we fear, the final question to tie things up is whether or not we fear what we do not understand - which would cause the original statement to be true, though only via amendments. This I think is far more reasonable, and it provides the means by which some people would accept an alien landing where others would not.
In the same way that we may feel unease, or wariness, at being unable to comprehend something, if the something is big enough it would probably be perfectly reasonable to feel scared. Small occurrences are not enough to cause fear, and may instead go towards causing hate (scratch that scary itch), but the encroachment of another race of beings from above, and the automatic realisation that in order to have mastered casual spaceflight, the race they are dealing with must be far in advance of our own, is such a huge occurrence that it may well cause an element of fear. It is, again, this may well factor that filters things around nicely.
The filter functions as "Many people fear what they do not understand, and many people hate what they fear". You therefore have three types of people that spontaneously group up when the aliens arrive, working on the assumption that no-one fully understands what is going on.
1. People who do not understand, and who do not fear. These are the ones who stand underneath the ships with placards saying hello. They could be viewed either as ignorant, stupid, or innocent. They are also the ones who feel that "something is wrong with what is going on". Always a minority, them.
2. People who fear what they do not understand, but do not hate it. These are the ones who hide in the basement until everything blows over, or simply claim it to be a hoax and go about their lives as normal, then blame the government for not keeping them informed.
3. People who fear what they do not understand, and hate it. These are the military and the slightly eXtreme people who want to blast it out of the sky before it even turns up.
I would claim that the original statement, while not exactly wrong, is too general to explain the reactions of people during an alien landing. Adding the element of fear in there splits things up into demographics you normally see in films, and that I would expect to see if it were ever to happen for real.
Which would you fit into?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-29 03:28 pm (UTC)I think further to your comments, it's an instinctive animal reaction to what could be a superior predator. You fear it in case it is, then are programmed on some level to "hate" it in order to be able to rid your territory of it and increase the chances of your own species' survival.
As to what group I'd fit into...instinctively the eXtreme group. But rationally, ignoring unjustified baseless supposition thrown up by my own fears and fed by the media and Hollywood, I would fit into the second. I would never be naive enough to welcome without question, but I don't believe that just because we are an incredibly aggresive species, that it means that every other species is too. Care, caution and an open mind are needed should we ever actually encounter another developed species.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-29 03:55 pm (UTC)Though it does suggest that unless we encounter a race who have undergone evolution in a fundamentally different manner to ourselves, that they will never be entirely interested in mere communication. It would be on some of their minds to eliminate the competitors for these new supplies.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-29 04:15 pm (UTC)Always been a fan of the "close my eyes and it will go away" approach though.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-29 04:40 pm (UTC)Which, incidentally, was the point I think I was making in the first place.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-29 04:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-29 05:04 pm (UTC)From what I've found out, most people in Europe thought of the Jews like that, for a number of reasons, including because they always had money (were known for being moneylenders), because of the crucifixion of Jesus, and because they kept to themselves and were therefore a subject of rumour more than anything. Hitler and the rest of the German government simply capitalized on that fear and used it as their own tool. It snowballed from there, although it went farther than all but the most hardcore could even imagine.
As for your categories, I'm not sure which one I would fit into. I'm enough of a coward that I would probably stock up on tins and bottled water and find a nice place underground.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-07 07:56 pm (UTC)As I understand it, success in business, pointed at because they were identifiably different in some typical racist ways (gosh, what a big hooked nose, they must be evil!), created envy which was bred into hate. Ironic that the campaign for Aryan supremacy built it's approach on the fact that someone was better/more successful than them and had to be pulled down.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-30 12:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-01 04:21 pm (UTC)If aliens turned up i'd probably watch them as much as i could and get violent if it looked like they were getting interested in me. Saying hi is one thing but trying to say hi and walking toward me would be a subconsiously hostile act to me.
I wouldn't hate them because i didn't understand them but pretty much just like my inner wolf i'd be 'baring my teeth' until i had proof that they werent hostile.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-07 08:15 pm (UTC)So if they're not hostile, then there's nothing we can do to hurt them anyway and they'll soon set us straight. If they're hostile then either we get them or they get us. Easily. If by freak accident we wipe out a friendly contact, no big deal. We're still here and can push the advantage.
Cutting to face to face contact reactions, inserting disclaimers about broad but limited knowledge:
From what I've gathered from a very limited interest in psychology and such things, you're (I'm told) applying too much actual thought to the reaction on actually seeing aliens or certain evidence of aliens. The arrival of a truly alien species trying to make contact or just visibly existing would cut out all the thinking parts of the brain entire and step into the gut reaction which kicks in when, as a child of five, you lie in bed, staring at the wardrobe door that's open a crack, convinced the vampire inside is staring out at you, waiting for you to go to sleep...
Thought is discarded in favour of pure reaction and the reaction is fear so intense that if you can't get away from it right away you'll go insane, fear that will make you claw, hit, kick and struggle to be elsewhere, but you probably won't think about the gun at your side until you're a mile away, huddled in a ditch shivering and crying.
The good news is threefold: (1) the other side, may be braced for contact, assuming they believed it possible for other intelligent life to exist and so may be able to take a little of this calmly before reacting in the same way to us, with the benefits of the tech that allowed them to cross the stars.
(2) to embrace the concept of alien correctly, the vast majority of potential contacts are probably so alien that we wouldn't even comprehend them as contact. And neither would the other side.
(3) Dropping back into comprehendable technologies and attitudes, there's as good a chance that contact will come from Von Neumann probes as with any kind of manned ships. Von Neumann being the gent who outlined how one approach to the possibility to the existence of alien sentient life would be for a species to build self-replicating, self-maintaining space probes that would scatter through the stars, working on set lines to render any location producing, say, radio waves in certain frequencies which didn't carry a specific under signal (don't want to kill ourselves, after all), uninhabitable or better yet dust in space. So the concept of contact wouldn't even occur - most likely we'd get time to say "Hmm... that's an interesting thing. One of Jupiter's moons just disappeared." before fragments of said moon hit us.