After expending the energy and resources to get into Earth’s orbit, it’s probably a lot more efficient to subjugate or destroy the dominant life form than to try and figure out how to communicate with it to achieve the above objectives.
Um, yes it is. This is a very well known general truism. Destruction is almost always easier than creation. For example which do you think is easier, painting a complex painting, or destroying a complex painting?
Um, yes it is. This is a very well known general truism. Destruction is almost always easier than creation.
Certainly spilled milk can’t be put back in the milk jug, but I don’t think that proves destruction is easier than creation rather it underlines that what makes destruction devastating is that it cannot be reversed in the way the construction of something can.
My point is, why do you narrowly frame the choice as either destroying a complex painting or creating one?
I did not say that war and conflict don’t happen, I am asking you to prove that in a general way they are more efficient than adaption, co-operation, co-existence or simple non-engagement and avoidance are as strategies.
It isn’t more efficient. That’s why I will always call humans dumb and arrogant. That’s not the argument being made, either. The argument was that it is easier to destroy, not more efficient.
Why? How so?
Blowing shit up is always easier than understanding the shit you’re going to blow up.
No, it really isn’t!
Easier, not takes less absolute energy.
Than what do you precisely mean by “easier”?
What else could it mean in this context? It means less mental exhertion and thought. You know, the things understanding requires.
Yes, it really is!
Um, yes it is. This is a very well known general truism. Destruction is almost always easier than creation. For example which do you think is easier, painting a complex painting, or destroying a complex painting?
Certainly spilled milk can’t be put back in the milk jug, but I don’t think that proves destruction is easier than creation rather it underlines that what makes destruction devastating is that it cannot be reversed in the way the construction of something can.
My point is, why do you narrowly frame the choice as either destroying a complex painting or creating one?
I think history would beg to differ.
How so?
Centuries upon centuries of tribalism and war instead of diplomatic missions. Do … do you even know the history of humanity??
There’s a reason people call modern times the most peaceful time in history … while there are wars and genocides still going on.
I did not say that war and conflict don’t happen, I am asking you to prove that in a general way they are more efficient than adaption, co-operation, co-existence or simple non-engagement and avoidance are as strategies.
It isn’t more efficient. That’s why I will always call humans dumb and arrogant. That’s not the argument being made, either. The argument was that it is easier to destroy, not more efficient.