Aliens shopping around in our solar system quickly come to the realization that humanity (at our current stage of evolutionary development) could only ever be a threat to them. Call it a pre-emptive strike. To put it another way, one very familiar to homo sapiens sapiens, "This solar system ain't big enough for the two of us, partner." Other than that, I agree with the assertions that it just makes for a more thrilling and relevant story.  Â
Excerpt from a future edition of 'The History of Martian Colonization', Vol. 3: "The religious conflicts that inspired the decimation of the Martian colonies in 2094 A.D. had their origins on Earth, long before the first Martian settlers arrived on the planet many hoped would be a refuge."
As far as I can tell, "North" and "South" are Anglo-Saxon words meaning, respectively, "the direction which is to the right of a person facing the setting sun (west), and "in the direction which is to the left of a person facing the setting sun." In essence, "North" is north (geographically) because that was where the Norse people could be found. They're just words from a particular culture that became a fundamental rule. Makes me wonder, before North and South became common usage, how did the other ancient cultures divide the "solar hemispheres"?
I'd rather fight in World War II due to the better medical care and lack of trench warfare, but I'd say it was more horrific overall, especially when you consider civilian lives and what they did to some of the prisoners of war.Zariano
I'm looking forward to Prometheus. It may not fulfil all expectations but I'll be happy with a competent expansion of the Alien storyline. Alien is an excellent film, on many levels, and one of my personal favourites. Giger's artwork and set-design stills blows my mind. I also enjoyed Aliens...but the later movies don't work so well for me. Ridley Scott released Alien in 1979, and it was a real eye-opener. Star Trek had long promoted a policy of diplomatic communication between intergalactic species; the alien presence in Kubrik's Space Odyssey was a simple enigmatic block of stone; Star Wars (released in 1977) portrayed a universe inhabited by forces of good and evil, of species and cultures very much like we were, regardless of their homeworld. Along comes Alien, and we were introduced to a creature that nearly destroyed all further thought of searching for extraterrestrial life. Scott unleashed a vision of a living nightmare, almost unstoppable, who viewed humanity not as future compatriots endeavouring to establish a just and humane universal order, but as fleshy hosts to be used as living incubators. I'm looking forward to Prometheus...
Any insect that lays eggs in human flesh. As a child in South America I saw flying cockroaches the size of potatoes, centipedes that stretched almost a foot in length, tarantulas, scorpions, leeches...but nothing unnerved me more than the thought of having an insect's brood gestating within my body, waiting to feed.
[QUOTE="Cybrian"]Though many of them are trained warriors, when was the last time you heard a Buddhist espouse violence? To me, this speaks volumes. If not the most intelligent, then certainly one of the the most peaceful of the religions. I find it easy to embrace the straightforward philosophy that action begets reaction, and that one must bear responsibility for oneself. Zeviander
Oi... Every Asian country since Buddhism's inception has used violence to coerce conversion. Tibet is especially notorious, considering they allied themselves with the Mongols and conquered China at one point. Ashoka conquered all of India and installed Buddhism as the national religion. The Japanese have fought wars over Buddhism since it first hit their shores. Hell, the samurai class itself Buddhist. Burma? Have you read anything about it in the news recently? Buddhism is one of the least peaceful religions to hit the Earth. The only one I'd say is more violent is Islam. Every 'country' ever formed since humanity crawled out from the shadows of the cave has used some form of violence to achieve a desired result. Religious doctrines, as revealed by their founders, are not immune to corruption by those who would usurp its tenets for their own gain. A dog may wag his tail, but that does not mean he's friendly. In the same vein, an individual born in a Buddhist country is not necessarily a Buddhist. Concerning Asoka, he rose to power over a realm that had been established by Chandragupta Maurya (known as Sandracottus to the Greeks of Alexander's army), who overran the Punjab (321 B.C.) and the Ganges (303 B.C.), eventually consolidating an empire that spanned India. He used Buddhism merely as a doctrine to set against the powers wielded by the Brahmins, who were opposed to rule by 'kings' because they were not usually of the Brahminical caste. After Chandragupta's death his son assumed power, and after the death of the son Asoka came to the throne. Asoka (264 to 227 B.C.) himself fought only one war (invading Kalinga in 225 B.C.) and it disgusted him. He is the only military monarch on record (inscriptions still exist) who abandoned warfare after victory. In fact, in the same year of his one and only war, Asoka became a layman in the Buddhist community, attaining full membership in the Order a few years later. He spent the rest of his reign establishing beneficial institutions, such as hospitals, schools, and gardens. Your point on Tibet is noted, but my rebuttal to your statement would occupy too much space. As for Burma, the "Land of the Generals", isn't Aung San Suu Kyi a shining example of what Buddhism can engender? She is much more reflective of Buddhism's original tenets than the tawdry power-grubbing exhibited by a cabal of self-serving 'Little Men' determined to maintain their grip on a beleaguered nation. For the record, I should clarify that I am of no particular faith, shy away from all organized religion ("...opium for the masses."), avoid most discussions that can have no resolution in empirical fact, and find it abhorrent when different sects upholding the (ostensibly) same spiritual views vie among themselves for supremacy of their 'brand' of faith, particularly when the conflict involves those who claim to follow the Eightfold Path. I choose rather that a person should exercise their own mental faculties when contemplating their 'spiritual' needs, and what manner of religious expression or 'ethereal entity' they are willing to accept, on 'faith', to fill the void. In the long run, a person's lack of spirituality will matter less than their lack of humanity. We may easily "get by" if there were no religions, but we stand no chance of survival if we can't "get along" with each other.
Log in to comment