naw, walruses are much better

No sentient, so the mental equivalents of us, able to build civilizations, tool using, language, all that

Of course it would be. How would it not?

well, dolphins are pretty intelligent. Do they count?

They tried to kill us! 2 times! In a row! We had to, man! It was for our survival! D:

@President Eden, how and why would I be wrong?

it*

The dolphins attacked first... alliance with the polar bears. We had to do it man, had to do it

dub and FD are making good points though. Elephants and dolphins may not be on human level, but they're certainly highly mentally complex, and I'd argue worthy of some degree of ethical consideration above, say, insects.

THEY BOOK BELGIUM FOR CRYING OUT LOUD

*took

And it depends on the reason. If we want to take them out because we are badass like that, that's wrong

Because sapience is how we make distinctions on what is ethically proper to do to certain animals. For example, stomp your own dog to death or beat a pet pig to death with a bludgeoning instrument and you'll find yourself being charged with animal cruelty, even if you own the animal. On the other hand, we have an entire market for the extermination of insects.

I mean, what ethically separates something that has equal sapience to humanity from humanity itself? I just don't see anything that does.

I agree that they deserve some consideration, but not more than our own species, I'm talking more about either the morality of cross species competition like between early hominids, or competition between us and legitimate extra-terrestrial life forms. Or fully developed artificial intelligence for that matter.

Okay, so with specific respect to cross-species competition. That is a different point, since we're not competing with pigs or dogs. (We're not really competing with insects either; sure, they're in our living space, but typically hiding where we can't find them, and we're not removing them because they're taking up our space, we're removing them because they gross us out.)

That's going to depend on the level of interaction between the humans and the others. I would need to know what kind of moral system the others hold to be certain of the answer. Instinctual response is that xenocide would never be the answer, nor would any group treatment of the others (good or ill), but instead evaluation along individual patterns of behavior. If a given other doesn't prefer others to humans, then the other is clearly displaying a level of empathy and willingness to cooperate that in my mind would merit reciprocity. If, on the other hand, a given other does discriminate against humans, then I wouldn't see any trouble in discriminating in response.

If it can cry, killing it for the sake of killing it is as low as you can get. Elephants can cry, I believe. Insects, not so much. Point being: if it feels, don't touch it.

Concerning wiping out a sentient species: If you're in danger, you have to prioritize your own survival. If you feel the other guy is a threat, for whatever reason, you should probably neutralize them. Of course, if they're peaceful, then you probably shouldn't go around killing them.

I'd argue that war with such a species would be acceptable, if we determine our strategic interests to be so threatened by the other species that it's inevitable, but xenocide should not be part of the war. You'd have to see if you can somehow identify, within the new species, a fighting and a non-fighting class of beings and be sure to target only the former.

It seems foolish and short sighted not to fully wipe-out the enemy. It can be argued that to do so is unnecessary in intra-human conflicts because both groups are humans and common ground exists. But defeating in war an entirely different species, while also taking from them resources, probably vast resources, while leaving alive a section of the defeated group to either go into hiding or simply rebuild, seems foolish. Retaliation is inevitable, and likely overwhelming, nuclear or biological weapons could be produced by a fairly small segment of a population if allowed enough time and resources. It seems to me the only possible end to war against a separate species would be extermination or enslavement, and enslavement carries with it far too many dangers.

@redhouse, you mean something along the lines of: cooperation so long as the cost benefit ratio remains positive, but direct competition once the relationship becomes negative?

Well let's say they move space ships into our atmosphere and we can't tell if they're used to somehow contact us or attack us, then I'd say you should strike preemptively, but with the idea of self-defense and not extermination. Even if extermination would be the result of such a strike, it should never be the objective.
I guess much depends on the level of technology as well. If they got to us before we did to them, odds are, we have a problem.

^, Especially if they come in mass. I mean, you don't send an army to talk peace.

Redhouse, what if they've a massive empire that their belt, and if you don't fight to win, they will, given time, destroy you by sheer attrition? If every battle were to take place at /your/ hope, you eventually won't have a home. Self-defense is ideal, but, sometimes, it's too risky; you don't know if the enemy is fighting to kill you, or just take everything from you... Both are equally messy, really.

"If it can cry, killing it for the sake of killing it is as low as you can get."

This counts Chuck Norris out, then? His tears can cure cancer. Too bad he never cries...

Oh come on, Dub, don't involve Chuck Norris! Nothing we say matters in his greatness; all theories fall apart. D:

'Sides, he'd break you in a blink.

Coming to think of it, I'm guessing I'd let a lot of rules apply that apply right now as well. If they are much stronger, somehow try to signal surrender to them and hope for good treatment after the war. We should communicate the best we can that we are a sentient species, probably trying to convey how far our grasp of the Universe has gotten up until the point of that war hoping they'll treat us as equally as possible.

All fighting should be conducted as if it were for total victory. So between human aggressors it should be either for unconditional surrender and then the total disarmament of destruction of the defeated to conduct further warfare, like what the Russians did to East Germany, or in the case of limited war, like in Libya, should be with the aim of totally removing all vestiges of the previous government, and setting up one amenable to your interests, with no other considerations, so if a democracy will do that do a democracy, if an authoritarian regime will do it, do that. In conflict between species, only extermination can assure victory.

Given the costs inherent in space travel, not the least being time, if a large group arrive here, you can bet they intend to stay, and likely displace us

Ehm. Is that what you conclude after discussing this topic?

Sweet Jesus, all my typos. /me cuts self in punishment.

Anyway, that sounds reasonable... if you want to be subjected. I mean, do you really want to place your life in their hands? To die on your knees, as they say. ;)

Science says that any reasonable advanced species wouldn't come to conquer us if they had other options. If they're really here to fight, I can't imagine it would be for anything than to take our stuff. If they want our planet...

No thats what I think coming in, and based on previous readings.