Aliens on Earth?

Departing From my usual tirades on serious issues a fun topic but still strict logic applied liberally (at least I hope.)

There is much controversy over whether or not extraterrestrials have visited Earth. It seems that the proponents of the belief that Aliens have come to Earth are more religious like then science like. So this is where I will attempt to interject some science, and possibly some logic.

I expect that there is intelligent life in the universe other then humans. Given that there are a huge number of stars in the universe and a small, oh so very small, percentage of those stars could support intelligent life that still leaves a large number of possible intelligent species besides us Humans. (Yes that’s modified from the movie Contact)
Anyways for this debate let’s Assume that there is indeed other intelligent life in the universe.

With that Assumption that means that those intelligent species are really really far away. We have looked a long ways out. I don’t know the exact number of light years we have looked but I would say about 1,000 to 100,000 light years. Now regardless of a cosmological speed limit of c (the speed of light), to get here would take either a long long long long time or they have to be really really smart.

Practically of course that means that they are really smart. After all with all of our primitive technology we would never launch a manned mission to Alpha Centauri. So again we make another Assumption, the intelligent species coming to Earth is technologically advanced.

Technology is a funny thing in that it is a steady growing and evolving entity that covers all areas of science decidedly uniformly. I mean to have computers you have to know about electricity, semiconductors, language, math, chemistry, and most importantly Physics. Likewise to have spacecraft we have to have powered flight, computers, navigation, engines worthy of spaceflight, and Physics.

With that in mind we make another Assumption, that these smart Aliens with advanced technology have stealth technology. Looking at our current technology we have advanced flight, primitive space travel, and rudimentary stealth technology. Our stealth technology only spans but a brief segment of the spectrum, and under special circumstances.

Here comes Assumption number four, the intelligent Aliens who have advanced technology also have advanced stealth technology. Advanced stealth technology means they are stealthy across the entire spectrum. This is also known in the Sci-Fi world as cloaking.

Lets look at our current sensor technology, we have nifty satellites and spy planes that can go fast and see a long way in many parts of the spectrum, extrapolate what we have to really smart Aliens and you get some kick ass remote sensing.

Before we wrap this up we have to look at reliability, with our primitive technology we have some pretty reliable stuff, namely satellites and missiles (namely the Air-to-Air missile AMRAAM). Also extrapolate this trend and their them Aliens have technology that doesn’t fail.

To wrap this all up into a nice little package we have Aliens with advanced technology to get to earth in a decent amount of time, they then have advanced stealth technology as well as sensors, all of which doesn’t break. So there is an alien sitting next to you reading along with you and you are none the wiser of its presence. Or they are sitting on the other side of the Sun watching us via remote sensing technology.

But hold on a moment we are not done yet, now we should address why they are here and what they are doing.

We can assume that they are benevolent because to develop to such an advanced stage they would almost have to be peaceful. That is because we is stronger then I so they would be a large group that is content. As far as them wanting to use us for something well we have nothing they would want. Our fuel sources would be wholly inferior to what they have, they wouldn’t want slaves (too much trouble slaves are,) and why would they want this planet that we are well on our way to destroying? Oh and if for some reason they wanted us gone, well I for one would supernova our Sun and we might have a few seconds to go oh Sh!t before we become quite toasty.

What would they want then? Well history is written by the winners, either deliberately or accidentally, so our history no matter how hard we try will be biased. Let’s Assume that their history is similarly biased. We would present quite the case study.

One more thing before I shut up: we have already established that the Aliens if on Earth could hide from us easily enough, and we also know that they are really smart. So they would be smart enough to know that if they disclosed their presence to us today or within the near future that we as a race would loose all order and fall into disorder chaos and anarchy. Thus they wouldn’t want to disclose their presence to us. Unless of course they wanted to destroy us.

Islam in post Saddam Iraq

Islam is not the enemy that its been made out to be. With an open mind I have researched Islam I get the distinct impression that Islam is peaceful, and that a few leaders have made it violent.

Islam was the light of civilization from its rise to power in the 800’s through to the 1200’s. William H. McNeill, “…a series of Arabic doctors, astronomers, mathematicians, and philosophers added to the learning of their predecessors…” The quote refers to a time of about 1000 CE to 1200 CE, which was well into the dark ages of Europe. As a side note western civilizations numeral system is of Arab origin, derived from India.

Islam was one religion to preserve verses destroying what they conquered. McNeill again: First, “The Arabs did not destroy nor significantly damage the society and culture which they found in these regions [conquered regions], but they did transform both.” Secondly, “Their liberal policy toward the conquered population actually made the Arabs welcome to the vast majority of the inhabitants of the Near East.” This was the same tactic that allowed the Romans to expand as fast as they did.

The violence of Islam we see today is but a manifestation of a political power struggle that has hijacked a powerful religion. This discussion is focused on Islam in post Saddam Iraq,

From “Islamist Politics in Iraq after Saddam Hussein” by Graham E. Fuller a former Vice-Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, CIA: “Iraqi Sunnis lost heavily with the fall of Saddam Hussein.” Also, “Sunnis have everything to lose in a Sunni-Shia religious competition…” Furthermore, and to make things worse; “Shia undoubtedly perceive that they have the demographic power to act unilaterally.” This is because the Shiites are the majority in Iraq at about 60% while the Sunnis compose the remainder.

It can be seen that there is an internal political struggle in Iraq, there are also external factors, “Neighboring states are, predictably, already moving quickly where possible to establish centers of influence within Iraq…” Also more from Fuller: “Wahhabi influence from abroad will also be present. … The growth of Wahhabi power in Iraq will most likely stem from any growing hostility to the U.S. occupation and they will probably take the lead in armed opposition to the U.S. presence.”

I think Fuller states it quite clearly here, “The Islamists—Shia and Sunni—are not automatically hostile to the U.S. presence, especially since both gained from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But they are determined to retain the "Muslim character" of Iraq, especially in the face of non-Muslim occupation, and cannot long support the U.S. presence.” He continues with, “The Baath regime has created immense resentments within Iraqi society that will seek expression.” Added together you have a power struggle between internal groups, influenced by external groups, aggravated by years of oppression, which becomes quite the explosive mix.

However the solution is not a simple one, first as the occupying force in Iraq we must respect the Iraqi authority which has developed, and do what they ask. This will allow the "Muslim character" to flourish reducing the likelihood of dissent among the population. We must also make sure that there is a solid infrastructure in place to meet the needs of all the Iraqi people. That in turn will generate a strong economy which is essential to a stable government. The conditions for peace would then at least exist, and peace a possibility.

If we were to leave Iraq too soon peace would not be achieved. If the infrastructure is left incomplete then poverty will reign and dissent will follow, poverty is a recruiting arena for terrorists.
The infrastructure also consists of a strong police force, one which can adequately deal with terrorist threats but more importantly make the population feel safe. Because terrorists use intimidation and terror a vulnerable population can easily surrender to terrorists demands. If we leave Iraq underdeveloped the chances of Iraq reverting into an Islamic Fundamentalist state would be much higher.
As was quoted before the Shia and Sunni are not against the U.S. occupation and they owe the U.S. for their newfound freedom; it is however the Islamic Fundamentalists that are fighting the U.S. they were fighting before the war and occupation and will continue to as long as they can mount an effective resistance.

The Islamic Fundamentalists fight for a Muslim culture but with encroaching western culture they feel that they are loosing their identity, the rapid changes have also generated backlashes towards western culture because of the assimilation of Muslim culture into western culture. The value systems of historical Arabs and those of western culture are significantly different and some of the western values seem decadent, and demeaning. With all of this combined it leads to resistance and when the world isn’t listening that resistance turns to the only medium that the world does pay attention to, Violence.

Terrorism

The “War of Terror” is the doctor treating the symptoms and neglecting the disease. The disease is one of extreme poverty, alienation, distress, and hopelessness; the symptom is then terrorism.

To treat terror we must eliminate the terrorist’s followers, the extremely poor. To give those people something to live for will reduce the chances that they will give their lives up for terrorism.

Alienation and Distress are theorized to arise from the rapid globalization that is taking place today. Southeast Asia, the Indian sub content, central Asia, and the Middle East are all becoming developed regions. These are the breeding grounds for terrorists. These are the areas that provide the means for terror.
To help with the alienation and distress we must be respectful to other cultures and allow them expression. Show the developing nations that they can retain their cultural identity and still develop economically, culturally, and politically. This comes down to two things, the US population needs to take interest in other cultures and consume their cultural goods. The second thing is a public relations campaign to show the developing nation that its culture is valuable, and should be retained. These steps are valuable to the world as it will preserve diversity; if we don’t try to preserve diversity western culture will become so pervasive and prevalent that we won’t be able to leave home, as home will be everywhere (I don’t know about you but when I retire I want to travel the world and experience its diversity.)

Alienation could be reduced by creating a public forum where the US government and perhaps the world governments would listen to distress, and more importantly act to relieve that distress. Give potential terrorists a place to vent their anguish in a nonviolent manner. Give them a voice, and listen to that voice. The counter to being nice is to have absolutely no remorse, hold no bar, and have no limit to dealing with people if they turn to terrorism (this means keeping the policy of not negotiating with terrorists.) This would hopefully convince the alienated and dissenting people to use the peaceful way to be heard.

The last step to reducing terrorism (as an example, Islamic terrorism) is another PR campaign, one that counters the rhetoric of violent Islamic leaders, this must be done tactfully. The campaign would have to use legitimate Muslim voices, be grounded within legitimate Islam, and simply be funded with oversight by the western world but let the Islamic world produce the campaign.

Managing dissent and hopelessness will strengthen people to resist the rhetoric that violent leaders spew. To proclaim the goodness of Islam will show those still vulnerable that violence is not rewarded. Finally giving the alienated a voice that is listened to should persuade the leaders to nonviolence.