Alien Psychology

by Roderick R. MacDonald

  Seeing three ships approach from out there, the space fraternity expeditiously arrange their destruction and amidst the celebrations, earth announce a huge long term increase in the space budget to guard against future invasions. Just as the jokers are finishing off their champagne, an alert comes in about three ships approaching from deep space. Mobilised to meet the mysterious ships, they are dumbfounded to recognise three modified cargo ships approaching. Wondering what they actually destroyed, they were soon answered by the sight of three hundred alien ships speeding into the solar system.

  Terrible stories notwithstanding, a fake invasion sponsored by extremist factions of the military may not be totally out of the question at some time in the future. Maybe earth by then will have experienced peace breaking out and with little to do, the military will be in danger of becoming superfluous. What better way to increase a budget than stage an invasion. Could be a good idea for a conspiracy movie?

  Government conspiracies continue. There are even those who suggest that George W. Bush's new star wars anti—ballistic missile programme has, as its real target, not volatile nuclear states around the world but potential alien invaders. This is the most ludicrous of conspiracy plans for a couple of reasons, the first being that the anti—ballistic missiles would probably be useless against a real alien invasion, and second, because if there were such a threat, it would be best to meet it further out in space, away form earth. Unfortunately, with the construction of nuclear weapons and booster rockets that much easier, their proliferation around the world is already in the process of happening. Unstable governments come and go and the future likelihood of a nuclear bomb and its booster falling into renegade hands is probably quite high. After September 11, 2001, anything is possible! It's likely that, capabilities acknowledged, a renegade state or a breakaway part of a country may only be able to muster a couple of missiles at the most. Of course, targeted properly, they could devastate the United States or Europe, costing maybe fifty million lives in the process. After such a disastrous blow, the economy of the attacked country would take twenty years to recover, during which time the same thing could happen again. While never an admirer of Republican politics in the USA, an anti-ballistic missile programme is a small price to pay to avoid the alternative scenario?

  Returning to the aliens, in this book I've tried to give a logical presentation of the UFO phenomenon. What I have said may not be true but if they are here then this is what they'll be like. The Exordicans, a fictitious race that developed the ability to live for thousands of years and travel between the stars in a nomadic existence using large asteroid ships, may indeed have their counterpart right here in the solar system. Given the conditions under which the Exordicans evolved, we had a good guess as to their thought processes.

  Unlike our species which is both short lived and rapidly changing, the Exordicans belong to a stable species that has existed for millions of years. Dinosaurs became dominant creatures on earth for well over a hundred million years, species of pre—humans such as the Neanderthals had a stable existence for a quarter of a million years but we, in geological terms, have only just got our foot in the door. Less than one hundred thousand years ago we appeared on the planet, with the last ten thousand seeing the most extraordinarily changes of all. Even by these standards, the Exordicans and ourselves differ immensely but when taking into consideration their huge lifespans, the laws of chance and probability allow us to evaluate a new psychology, even more diverse from ours. What emerged from this exercise is not particularly beneficial or pleasant.

  The Exordicans, if they exist, are a one species society. Precariously positioned between survival and extinction, they do their utmost to ensure the latter but this comes at a cost to other less advanced civilisations in the galaxy. They're likely to be in an evolutionary dead end. Unable to change at more than a very slow pace as dictated by their long lives, they may indeed seek other genes to augment their path through the future. Sadly for them, the variation will probably be insufficient to enable them to continue forever: in a few million years, they may be extinct.

  The society in which we live is incredibly complex. Six billion people work together to make this world what it is. If you take a few people out of society and ask them to recreate the world, the task becomes impossible because the skills and attributes that a few people have are insufficient to master the whole society. It's like an ant colony. Individual ants don't count for much but put together en mass, the colony becomes almost an entity on its own with special characteristics and properties. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Human society is like an ant colony. However, the Exordicans, small in number, are unable to change and, put together as a whole, their society is only a collection of individuals where the sum isn't greater than the individual parts. It's our diversity that makes ourselves and the animals on this planet special. Exordicans have no diversity left within them and thus they are eventually doomed.

  How will mankind survive the future? There is a strong possibility that with similar motives for survival we will develop the same abilities, going into space, living for eons. A very small offshoot of our future line may go the same way as the Exordicans: what will happen to the remainder is unclear but they will also reach an evolutionary dead end at some time or another. Geological history has shown us that nothing lasts forever. Worlds, species, empires and individuals all have their time but that time isn't infinite!

  The other lesson from this exercise is that longevity may not be all it's cracked up to be. We strive for this goal but maybe we'd better be careful because we may get what we ask for. Once there, longevity will change us forever. We'll no longer be the people we were. Restricted by survival fears, virtually everything will be lost to us except a long, dull trek through future millennia. Longevity may not be the key to heaven: it's more likely the door to hell.

  Should the apple of long life tempt us, once again the Garden of Eden will be left behind. The aliens of the future shall be none other than ourselves. We will likely go to other worlds and remorselessly take what we want for our survival needs. Maybe we'll even abduct other species? This is the likely reality of the UFO situation.

  * * *

  Appendix

  Evolution

  Many would argue that we were divinely created and that evolution is a bogus theory conjured up to thwart religion. Despite the fact that Darwin was himself a religious person, this age old argument has been resurrected every time a bigot wishes to make a public declaration of self-satisfied faith.

  Believing blindly in a creation myth is actually quite easy. All you need is faith without reason and, bingo, every question is answered and you can spend the rest of your life with your head buried in sand. Were it all so simple! Evolution is more difficult to believe in because it isn't a doctrine written on stone tablets. Rather, it is a mechanism for describing life in a logical and open way not really dependent on who is in power at the time. Unfortunately, Stalin and Lysenko offered their own corrupted version. Disastrously manufactured to fit into their political manifesto, the ensuing bad press, especially during the cold war, put back scientific reason for years and played into the hands of the Bible bashers.

  Like some other scientific theories, evolution possesses a certain beauty in its operation, something that would appeal to those of a fundamentalist religious disposition if only they would open their eyes. Old arguments notwithstanding, what exactly is the process of evolution? Although the planet may be in eco-chaos as a result of mankind's endeavours, when we look about the biosphere it's still possible to observe that many animals appear to have adapted to their environment. Food chains are abundant but each stage of the chain tries to maximise its survival potential. How did they come to be like this?

  One of the most common examples to illustrate change through evolution is that of the giraffe. It's a misconception that giraffes evolved long necks through the action of stretching to reach food higher up in trees. No amount of neck stretching exercis
es undertaken by a giraffe will be passed on to its progeny: this is a Stalinist / Lysenko idea. The easiest way to understand the situation is by treating it as a matter of population distribution.

  If someone did a survey of giraffes, measuring the lengths of their necks with a tape and a large stepladder, a set of data similar to the normal distribution curve would be obtained. This starts off low, rises to a peak and then descends.

  As expected, most giraffes have near to average neck lengths. Only a few have short necks and similarly, only a few long necks. If the long neck giraffes had an advantage in that they were able to eat more food than the others, being that the food was only available higher up on trees, they would survive better than short neck giraffes. Consequently, as they have genes for long necks, this trait is more likely passed on to their offspring. Therefore, with the long neck giraffes surviving at the expense of the short neck ones, after a few generations the distribution curve will have shifted further to the right.

  The distribution curve is still the same, only the average neck length is now greater than the previous curve. Hence, giraffes have evolved longer necks. The same distribution curve is found, more or less, in just about everything that occurs in nature. A shoe manufacturer will have the same distribution for the population of adults, separated into male and female groups. As with any industry, the greater the production then the less the unit cost so it is therefore more economical to produce shoes in the average size and more expensive to produce very small or very large sizes. Ask anyone who is either small or tall to relate their problems in procuring shoes or clothing items at reasonable cost and you will understand the problem.

  Going back to the giraffes, it seems to be the case that eventually, if the process continued, necks will be as high as the tallest edible trees. Of course, trees themselves evolve to become taller by the same method. Taller trees, not ravaged by giraffes, survive better than smaller trees which would likely be completely demolished. The seeds of the taller trees contain tall producing genes and so the distribution shifts towards height in trees. There are a few problems with this scenario: the life cycle of trees, being slower than giraffes, is not be able to adapt so quickly and, depending on the number of giraffes, environmental ruin is a possibility. First, all the trees would be eaten and then, having no food, the giraffes either migrate elsewhere or die.

  Giraffes only possess long necks at the expense of their cardiovascular system; a great deal of pressure is required to pump blood up to their heads. There's a time when the long neck is too much of a physical disadvantage in spite of possessing the ability to reach higher food. Similarly, the trees cannot grow too high either. After evolutionary change, both remain in balance until further environment change alters this balance and promotes more evolutionary change. Also, apart from giraffes competing with each other, they compete with other animals but have an advantage to them in height. Indeed, giraffes have evolved into their own niche in the environment.

  Another example of natural selection could be the following. A biology teacher friend once had a house full of plants; all manner of green vegetation was situated in every available space, to the extent that one required a machete just to get through the front door. He then decided to take on two cats! Now, being young cats they got up to all sorts of mischief and attacking plants became one of their pastimes. Some were completely chewed up and demolished within a short space of time while others ... for some reason, perhaps the texture, toxins or simple odour, were left alone. Not being an expert on feline peculiarities, the teacher had no initial idea on which plants would or would not be durable. Then, the demolition ceased and the cats turned their attentions elsewhere. There were still sufficient plants remaining to make the house relatively green and these were propagated further to turn the house back to its former jungle. Later, someone unfamiliar with the house's history remarked on the highly improbable situation of finding a house full of plants, each and every one being cat proof. What an intelligent person this biology teacher was in that he could calculate which plants cohabited successfully with cats! He did not know that natural selection had been at work.

  It's worthwhile pointing out what evolution is not. It's not always change for the better. Neither is it necessarily change to be more complex or sophisticated. The common misconception about mankind, especially in science fiction movies, is that intelligence will develop more and more in the future and in say, a million or two years, we will all be super intelligent beings with huge dome shaped skulls packed full of brains. Intelligence evolved over the last few million years because it gave a survival advantage to those possessing it. Will increased intelligence promote survival in the future? Perhaps not. Mankind may become dependent on machines for everything and will eventually devolve in a society where only those of a low intelligence could survive the monotony of closeted protective living.

  As mentioned, evolution does not proceed by events that occur during the lifetimes of individuals, excepting of course if genes have been altered by the effects of cosmic radiation, radioactivity or some other disruptive agent such as viruses or chemical attack. This gene alteration possess is called mutation. It is a vital part of evolution. Some mutations are bad and others are good, and by bad and good I mean their ability to survive in the environment.

  There are many mutations which affect people today. The mutation may occur by the effect of a radioactive particle changing the DNA structure within the cells of sperm or egg, or even when fertilisation has taken place and the cells haven't divided to any extent. After exposure to atomic blasts and atomic accidents like Chernobyl, there is often a problem with newborn children in that they may have birth abnormalities. Even worse, should the radiation be severe, life threatening conditions like leukaemia may be produced. However, some mutations may be beneficial. These can be produced all the time by cosmic radiation (radiation from stars etc.), viruses or natural ground radioactivity. Mutations can be all sorts of things—the ability to be more intelligent, more physically adaptable, or the converse of these. It could also mean slight physiological changes, i.e. to the skeletal structure. These mutational changes happen all the time and normally nothing will happen to the beings with them except when there is a change in the environment and they are better able to survive as a result of their mutation. This will then be genetically passed on to make the fecundity of the mutated gene increase.

  Imagine a scenario thousands of years ago—a tribe of humans forever savaged by sabre tooth tigers. Let's suppose that a few individuals, probably by genetic accident or mutation, developed blue skin. This isn't necessary an advantage and it may be quite the reverse but perhaps the tigers were either afraid of blue skin or simply found it repugnant. Ordinary humans were eaten at the expense of blue skin people and the latter, able to survive better, passed on the blue skin genes. Eventually, most of the population were blue and the tigers, still displaying the same reluctance, moved to a neighbouring tribe not affected by blue skin. The other tribe didn't possess the blue gene and became tiger food. A few enterprising individuals, on observing their neighbours, noticed that the application of blue paint assured their survival. However, no amount of painting enabled blue skin to be passed on to their descendants and when blue paint ceased production in an industrial dispute, they were in serious trouble.

  The film “BRAVEHEART” with Mel Gibson depicted blue skinned Scots doing battle with the English. (in fact,13 & 14 century Scots didn't paint themselves blue) However, it is patently obvious, except at national football matches, that Scots people don't have blue skin. Huns from central Europe deformed their skulls by the act of binding from birth, a hideous and dangerous practice to make them more fearsome. Chinese women for centuries were subjected to the appalling feet binding habit, ostensibly to make them more attractive. Happily, both have ceased but descendants of these people certainly don't have deformed skulls or unusually tiny feet, showing again that actions during lifetimes do not affect genes and are not passed on to progeny.<
br />
  Obvious as these facts are, they were unpleasant reading for certain political ideologies in the past. Communism as expounded by the Soviet Union in the earlier part of the twentieth century worked on the public facade of people power, divorced from the constraints of class, wealth and inherited status. Intelligence, they said, was a matter of environment and not heredity. We now know that it's probably a bit of both but viewed in the context of repression that had existed before the revolution, not just there but in other countries too, where people were handed positions of power not through ability but through status in society, it is easy to see why many were disgruntled. At the behest of Stalin, the chief biologist Lysenko made the facts fit the theory and caused a disaster at the same time. Adamant in their belief that acquired traits would be passed on to subsequent generations, they soaked wheat in cold water thinking it would be toughened up to face the rigours of Siberian agricultural conditions. Instead of producing new strains to produce bountiful crops, the wheat turned mouldy and became useless. Famine added to the existing famine was the outcome. Lysenko was reputed to have said, “In order to obtain a certain result, you must want to obtain precisely that result; if you want to obtain a certain result, you will obtain it.... I need only such people as will obtain the results I need". This isn't exactly representative of the scientific method. Apart from causing death and hardship for millions, scientists who opposed Lysenko and his cronies were shot, imprisoned and starved to death in gulags. He died in 1976 and though largely discredited, incredibly there were still the odd few exponents of his ideas at large. His methods contaminated scientific thought in the Soviet Union for years.

  Much hated and detested by Lysenko was the science of genetics, which, basically, is the function of genes to pass on information to subsequent generations. Although some practical knowledge of genetics existed from work carried out by people such as Mendel, an Austrian monk famous for his pea experiments, the mechanics did not become clear until halfway through the twentieth century when Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA. This self-replicating molecule is a blueprint for life. Genes are the encoded chemical messages within DNA which govern the characteristics manifested in the living form. Most cell types within the human body, and other bodies for that matter, contain in the chromosomes all the information necessary to reconstitute that individual and by cloning, the creation and replication of that being is a distinct possibility.