Teaching The Young

[Ron Collins]

.....I am merely conjecturing this "alien source" for the corrective nature and implementation of new genes. It seems to fit a model of abduction activity and provides a link into the creation of new corrective genetics. I my mind, an alien creature would only be interested in implementing new genes or corrective genes into the system. To remove or revamp sections of the code can have disastrous connotations as many genes are linked. It is far simpler to create a gene with alleles that counteract specific traits of an individual. I am certain, have we the technology, we as humans would tackle the issue in a very similar way.

That depends on what the "Alien"Source" had in mind for humans when the implementations occurred.
One could only imagine what would occur if the average human lifespan was "made" to be let's say 500 years with an immunity to all diseases and an all but bullet proof metabolism.
Mi point is, if the Alien creator knew the inherent nature of humans he may have built in "flaws" for a very good reason i.e for population control.

I essentially agree with your hypothesis. Man is now heading to a point where genetic manipulation and engineering is racing ahead and who really knows what's going on behind the scenes. It's fair to say that if we are heading there, what's the bet that our progenitor(s) had achieved a extremely high level of the expertise the we as humans aspire to.

Again, this assumes that the "Alien Source" was damn near omniscient. Technology does not equate all knowing.

It also assumes a benevolence on their part. What if, before our genetic upgrade, we were docile. Perhaps angry and agressive super-warriors is the goal. Mabe it was a sideaffect. Perhaps they are pissed every time we stop fighting.

Im just pointing out that, if we were genetically altered by a technologically advanced species, then we can not blindly assume they are all smiles and warm wishes. Your injecting evangelical idealism into the subject. Or worse, periodic political idealism. To my way of thinking, that is a foolish thing to do in any situation.

Go where the evidence leads you. Aliens have never stopped wars from happening. They have never stopped bombers from dropping their bombs or missiles from hitting their targets. Even though they could probably do so. Likewise, they have never cured AIDS, Cancer, or any other disease or virus. They have never stopped the extracting or transportation of oil or other polutants. These are human issues. Human problems. That is not why they are here.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Again, this assumes that the "Alien Source" was damn near omniscient. Technology does not equate all knowing.

It also assumes a benevolence on their part. What if, before our genetic upgrade, we were docile. Perhaps angry and agressive super-warriors is the goal. Mabe it was a sideaffect. Perhaps they are pissed every time we stop fighting.

Im just pointing out that, if we were genetically altered by a technologically advanced species, then we can not blindly assume they are all smiles and warm wishes. Your injecting evangelical idealism into the subject. Or worse, periodic political idealism. To my way of thinking, that is a foolish thing to do in any situation.

Go where the evidence leads you. Aliens have never stopped wars from happening. They have never stopped bombers from dropping their bombs or missiles from hitting their targets. Even though they could probably do so. Likewise, they have never cured AIDS, Cancer, or any other disease or virus. They have never stopped the extracting or transportation of oil or other polutants. These are human issues. Human problems. That is not why they are here.

Of course it assumes omniscience! Any being, entity, power, God, Jehova, call it what you will, that is clever enough to create a human from scratch is omniscient in my book!

Ron.
I cannot recall saying that these so-called alien progenitors were benevolent or otherwise implied that they were. I'm sorry if it seems that way to you. Just because "possibly" an alien source fiddled with our genetic make-up doesn't mean they were the warm and fuzzy, fluffy bunny slippers style of aliens. Who knows. Maybe they were the galactic equivalent of Caligula and revel in the debauchery that our somewhat sadistic race has applied to this beautiful planet.
In fact the more i think about it, it seems like a very "Human" thing to do. That is, mess around with an already established and inherent part of this planet until it gets way out of control and then fuck off and let those who are left here to pick up the pieces. Sounds very much like what our leaders have been doing for many thousands of years!

Evangelical idealism? Periodic political idealism? Goddam it Ron! You just lost my vote! lol
The evidence leads me to think that if Genetic manipulation, for good or for worse, for badly needed medical breakthroughs or for creating a super warrior, is the direction we are heading then it's a reasonable assumption that that's where we came from in the first place.

 

[Seth]

Again, this assumes that the "Alien Source" was damn near omniscient. Technology does not equate all knowing.

Of course it assumes omniscience! Any being, entity, power, God, Jehova, call it what you will, that is clever enough to create a human from scratch is omniscient in my book!

Does the ability to control genetics and environment at a macro-scale necessarily equate to omniscience?

I seriously doubt it. Currently, mankind can regulate and introduce foreign genes into a number of creatures. I have personally seen GE glowing tobacco from firefly genes. We can keep ants in a plastic ant-farm container and manipulate every aspect of their lives if we wish. Do these abilities make us omniscient? Maybe to the ants and plants (oops, that rhymes) it does. Does their perception of us as gods make us gods? Hmmmm, nope.

Maybe to ants and plants we seem like magical "god like" creatures that periodically phase in and out of their reality doing little to improve their overall lively-hood. Maybe certain occasions lend evidence that we "care" for these life forms by protecting or interacting with them; maybe other occasions point to our indifference with them. (This should be sounding quite familiar). Would not some ants or plants regard us as villains and others regard us as gods? This scenario fits the paranormal one we are currently involved with quite well.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Does the ability to control genetics and environment at a macro-scale necessarily equate to omniscience?

I seriously doubt it. Currently, mankind can regulate and introduce foreign genes into a number of creatures. I have personally seen GE glowing tobacco from firefly genes. We can keep ants in a plastic ant-farm container and manipulate every aspect of their lives if we wish. Do these abilities make us omniscient? Maybe to the ants and plants (oops, that rhymes) it does. Does their perception of us as gods make us gods? Hmmmm, nope.

Maybe to ants and plants we seem like magical "god like" creatures that periodically phase in and out of their reality doing little to improve their overall lively-hood. Maybe certain occasions lend evidence that we "care" for these life forms by protecting or interacting with them; maybe other occasions point to our indifference with them. (This should be sounding quite familiar). Would not some ants or plants regard us as villains and others regard us as gods? This scenario fits the paranormal one we are currently involved with quite well.

Omniscience, as such, is within the perspective of the beholder, of course. Then again define omniscience.

Maybe to ants and plants we seem like magical "god like" creatures that periodically phase in and out of their reality doing little to improve their overall lively-hood. Does their perception of us as gods make us gods? Hmmmm, nope.

Would not some ants or plants regard us as villains and others regard us as gods?

Once again the definition of God or a god is in the mind of the beholder.
You seem to want to have your foot in two camps when you say that ants and plants may not consider us to be gods when they perceive us to be gods. And who would know what an ants definition of a god would be anyway.You cannot equate human perception of a god with that of an insect, not unless ants have suddenly taken to reading the bible or studying theology. a bad choice of analogies, i think.
If we knew who our creators were would we still consider them god's?

I agree. We probably wouldn't especially if it was an alien species or a more advanced version of a humanoid. But then again some humans would.

 

[Seth]

Omniscience, as such, is within the perspective of the beholder, of course. Then again define omniscience.

No, I think omniscience is pretty straight forward and all-encompassing as a word. I would not disagree at all with the dictionary.com definition: "Having total knowledge; knowing everything". Keep in mind this means EVERYTHING, not just macro-environments and genetics (the subject at hand), which are a very small part of EVERYTHING.

Once again the definition of God or a god is in the mind of the beholder.

You seem to want to have your foot in two camps when you say that ants and plants may not consider us to be gods when they perceive us to be gods.

I am saying ants may perceive us as gods because of the advancements we have compared to their abilities. Because lesser cognitive beings look up to us as higher beings does not make us deities. From their perspective we may seem amazing, but truly we are not so astounding from a universal perspective. It depends on one's viewpoint.

And who would know what an ants definition of a god would be anyway.You cannot equate human perception of a god with that of an insect, not unless ants have suddenly taken to reading the bible or studying theology. a bad choice of analogies, i think.
If we knew who our creators were would we still consider them god's?

I agree. We probably wouldn't especially if it was an alien species or a more advanced version of a humanoid. But then again some humans would.

I am speaking from the perspective of an ant(substitute any living thing on earth here); not saying an ant actually has a view on this matter.

I agree with your second paragraph above as this has been my point all along. Perspective counts.

It is dangerous to worship something that which we do not understand!

(That statement may be worth adding as a signature!)

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Seth.
I have three questions for you.

!. Who or what do you think was responsible for our creation?

2. On the subjects of genetics (engineering, manipulation, medical advancement/enhancement). In the future let's say 50 to 1000 years from now, where do you think mankind will be?

3. If we get to the point where we are creating other humans genetically or otherwise, do you think it is reasonable to assume that our progenitors (if that it is the method of our production) had used the same or similar methods to produce us?

I think the issue, here, is not the perception of omniscience or religious worship but whether it is likely that the human species has been tampered with genetically at some distant point in our past, or not.

 

[Seth]

!. Who or what do you think was responsible for our creation?

This is no doubt one of the most intriguing questions ever posited by man. In my humble opinion, there could be many answers. I make no claims to knowing; I do enjoy conjecturing, though. As in pervious threads, the structure and interaction of genetic molecules seems deliberate and contains hints of manufacturing errors or sloppiness. It emulates a system created by powerful intellect but not necessarily by omniscient beings.

2. On the subjects of genetics (engineering, manipulation, medical advancement/enhancement). In the future let's say 50 to 1000 years from now, where do you think mankind will be?

Obviously, technology will be advanced (that sounds like a Sylvia Browne prediction) and we should expect it to interface with our bodies and minds in ways we may not be able to imagine now. No big revelations here, but it is important to mention based on the claims of abductees. Remember, without the injection of technological marvels we could be talking about fairies or demons or something else entirely. The idea that technology is included in experiences points to the future or beings with futuristic capabilities.
Biology is my interest so speaking from that point lets look at the changes taking place in man over the past two million years. Our cranial capacity has increased dramatically. Our large breath-warming noses have decreased significantly. The density of hair on our bodies has dwindled. Our robust bodies have become less robust. Our muscle density is not what it once was. Sight has become the dominating sense. Collectively, skin color has become lighter. Communication techniques have become more elaborate…These traits, in all likelihood, will continue to advance given our cultures and environment does not change drastically. Reread the previous and use your imagination to build a visual representation of a future human in your mind.

This opens up a plethora of ancillary questions related to the following:
Are then the “alien” creatures really future humans?
If they are jumping back in time and manipulating DNA, doesn’t this create a paradox?
Haven’t we created a cyclical arrangement that still does not lead to an original arrangement?

3. If we get to the point where we are creating other humans genetically or otherwise, do you think it is reasonable to assume that our progenitors (if that it is the method of our production) had used the same or similar methods to produce us?
I think the issue, here, is not the perception of omniscience or religious worship but whether it is likely that the human species has been tampered with genetically at some distant point in our past, or not.

I say it is highly likely genetic experiments are or have been performed on us as a type of experiment. Our perception is so small (or controlled) we cannot see the entire picture. Ask yourself, “How much more technology would we need to do the exact thing discussed in this thread?” Honestly, I do not think it requires much; we can consider these types of experiments and tackle them to some degree now. With a better understanding and more advanced technologies I am certain we could do the same. Is it so silly to say that a different or future group is doing the same to me? Not really. This reminds me of the often used analogy of the Matrix. How do you know when you are being controlled or led when your perception is skewed?

The classic evolution-based question must then be applied, “If someone or something created us, who or what created them?”