And what if were not the lion, what if were the deer? In this situation were not the predator, were the prey. What if there was a reason why they had to search for another planet?
Our planet wont be habitable for an infinite amount of years. Eventually either were going to exhaust everything from our planet and have to move on to another. Think about it, we've already exhausted species of animals, plants, and resources are soon going to be gone to. If we acquire another habitable planet (even just for the resources), what if there's another organism living there? Were going to ignore our needs because of the organism there? Or are we going to say "Fuck you" and still take whatever is the reason why we came there.

I mean you can ask what if all you want, but I can ask the opposite so...What's the point?

I can ask what if as much as I want because I am posing my own theory.
Your battling it, and by this post you just ran out of things to say

Edit:
And I use the term theory loosely

This post was edited by impulse155 on Dec 24 2011 11:15pm

Orson Scott Card answers your question. Problem being, it's a complicated answer that can't be summed in a single paragraph and in fact takes multiple novels to work through.

This post was edited by kayeto on Dec 24 2011 11:18pm

Well how do you debate when you define a set of premises and then derive a conclusion from them? It's a meaningless debate. I could say that the aliens we encounter are in fact not predators, and they just want to hang out and maybe visit earth for vacation purposes. I don't know if that's true. I've never met any aliens.

I was actually looking up gene roddenberry, Ive never been too much of a fan of science fiction movies or books. This is for a couple reasons, 1) im not the type of person who really enjoys to read ;\ and 2) I feel 99% of science fiction is now based off of hollywood trying to make money and not posing any theory.

In regards to Card, if its that complicated/drawn out, post a link to it if I can find some run down thats not EXTREMELY long, I would definitely be interested.

Edit:



Well isn't a theory when you define a set of premises and then derive a conclusion from them. My conclusion is that if we look at our society, I feel that based on our destructive and dominant nature, and the fact that were in the process of using up our resources, that if need be, we wouldn't be going to Mars (or an inhabitable) for vacation purposes.

This post was edited by impulse155 on Dec 24 2011 11:25pm

1st , you're assuming any 2 species would form a predator/prey relationship
2nd , if you look at 2 predator species , unless one is actually the natural prey of the other ( which means a significant advantage )
then what we observe in the natural world is far more posturing , than actual violence
the risks inherent in violent actions outway the benefits

there are many kinds of relationships in nature

This post was edited by Matao on Dec 24 2011 11:30pm

sure but you can't just make up premises. Do you really think that the history of humans is the only plausible model for life? Do you also not notice the trend that humans are progressing towards tolerance and peace? Who knows how far we'll have come by the time interstellar travel is possible?

This post was edited by Derkaderk on Dec 24 2011 11:45pm

If the situation is that they are coming here because their planet is no longer inhabitable.
I don't see anyone forming a mutualistic or even a commensalistic relationship with another species that they have never even encountered before in their life.
Cant really think of any situations where another life form coming to our planet would be mutualistic or commensalistic. If you look at what happened when whites met the blacks. Whites enslaved them. Were blacks ever our prey? Did we ever actually eat black people to survive? This can also be used to refute derk's post earlier about eating other organisms to survive.

This post was edited by impulse155 on Dec 24 2011 11:38pm

That's the first half of the picture. Just like when Europeans came to the Americas, so too was conflict the initial result. But in neither case was conflict the final result.