This initially began as a response to comments on a post here, at IHW, as well as an article posted by Erik Stitt of Contact, and is in regards to Stephen Hawking's recent opinions on the nature of extra terrestrial life. But once I'd posted it thought it might make for a good piece on it's own, after elaborating on some points and cleaning it up a bit.With Stephen Hawking's latest statement on extra terrestrial life, their arose the question of anthropomorphic tendencies among some physicists. Of course, this isn't anything particularly new. It's human nature to project human qualities on other forms of life and sometimes even on inanimate objects. These peculiar inclinations of ours provide a lot of interesting questions and has produced some awful literal representations. But when it comes to inserting our qualities into the mind of an intelligent alien life form, when does it become overly presumptuous, if not completely presumptuous from the start?
I have mentioned in past articles that labeling the possible actions of an extra terrestrial civilization with terms like 'good' or 'bad', is a bit ridiculous because it assumes that all intelligent beings would act more or less like us, portraying the same kinds of emotions and have the same ideas of what is considered 'right' and 'wrong'. So, when science speaks up and theorizes that contact with EBEs may be to our detriment because they could live a malevolent existence and seek to conquer us, it gives the general public the impression that life really is like Star Wars and that it might not be such a slick idea to set up base on Hoth.






