Several logics are given in the novel "Three-Body" and the Ender series.
Suppose a civilization A discovers another civilization B in the universe. The current level of development of civilization B is lower than that of A, but the rate of progress is amazing, and it may surpass A within a few centuries. So what kind of judgment should A make?
Planet B may be well-intentioned or malicious.
Let's not talk about well-intentioned options for the time being. If its tendency is malicious, when it matures and surpasses Star A, Star A is likely to face extinction. So, can Star A bear this "what if"? This is not a question of whether to eat watermelon or apples, it is a matter of life and death.
Taking a step back, Star B is well-meaning. For example, the pig planet in the Ender series. A human professor has studied them for many years. He has always been cautious and friendly, but in the end he suffered a broken fate. Are the pigs cruel? Not really. It turns out that their life form is different from that of human beings. After opening the mouth, they can realize the transformation from animal to plant. They just hope to help the professor achieve "sublimation" through the "murder" in this human concept. The ecological status and moral cognition of each planet are unpredictable. How can it be determined that Star B’s goodwill will not cause damage to Star A?
If there is something in common among civilizations, it should be "logic". Logic is the basis for the development of any discipline. Logically speaking, I don't see any other options for Star A.
Destroying or occupying Star B is logically inevitable. As for whether it violates morality? ——What kind of moral premise is this question based on? A star or B star? Are the moral measures of the two civilizations common? If they are different, then the question itself is meaningless.
The relationship between interstellar civilizations has always been a logical proposition, not a moral one.
But "The Ninth District" has its special place.
After watching some of my friends, they all became addicted to the scene where the Zerg bombed the humans. Why did you choose the position of aliens as a human being?
Here, Zerg and humans can communicate with each other in language, and their behavior and thinking conform to our model. Seeing the Zerg mourning for the companions who died in the biochemical experiments, the efforts to return to their homeland, and the acceptance of the half-human half-worm protagonist-we can't help but sigh that these worms are really more like humans than humans. More like humans than humans? Well, let's say that they are humans, except for their worm-like appearance-that's why the audience will identify with them.
This is an earth story dressed in science fiction.
To me, this is more like a colonial metaphor. Human behavior towards the Zerg all insinuates the atrocities in history. Why did Europeans kill the Indians hundreds of years ago? Why would the Germans genocide the Jews? Why would the Japanese commit brutality in China? "Pigs", "worms" and so on are the former's contemptuous term for the latter. It is precisely because of the dehumanization of alien races—or the “alienization” of “alien races”—that makes them cruel and comfortable to kill. For them, these are no different from killing a dog and a pig.
But in the "Schindler List", why did Schindler, a German businessman, protect the Jews? Because he had communication and contact with workers in the factory, understood their background, and knew that as Jews, he was first a "person".
One civilization and another civilization, one race and another race, the prerequisite for their peaceful coexistence must be to understand each other and touch the human part of it. Appearances can vary greatly, and the reason why people are humans is based on "human nature." That's why I said that the Zerg in "The Ninth District" are humans and not aliens. We created them based on our own moral view, emotional view and social view. This is why we are more biased towards the Zerg than those government troops. Because in the description of this film, we don't see the human part of the former.
But this bias is not dangerous and narrow.
When several government officials wanted to kill the male lead for the benefit of tens of millions in the film, I am afraid that everyone felt outraged, right? Let's change the scene: our investigator is captured by the enemy, and one of our spies lurking in the enemy's camp is dispatched for execution. If this investigator is not killed, his own identity will be exposed, and the entire plan will be burned. To kill or not to kill?
The former is for money, the latter is for revolution. The former is despised, but the latter is often praised.
As long as the motive is lofty enough, some people can take the lives of other people?
How do you judge the sublime of motivation? In the same way, how do you judge the justice of your own morals?
By analogy,
a certain human being possessed by alien creatures must be killed to save all humanity. To kill or not to kill?
The collective virus in a certain village is in danger of infecting its surroundings. Should it be killed or not?
A certain nation is inferior and stupid. In order to improve the quality of all mankind, should it kill or not? ——Very familiar, right? The Nazis were born.
If we can make concessions to the fact that "sacrifice one person to benefit most people", then one day we can also accept "sacrifice the interests of the family" and "sacrifice one person" under the guise of so-called "justice" and "interest." "The interests of cities", "sacrifice the interests of a country", "sacrifice the interests of a nation".
So we saw the Nazis, saw the invasion of China, and saw the US-Iraq War.
I am a pacifist because I do not believe in absolute justice, nor do I believe that some people can kill another under any motive or name.
And the reason why we are happy to see humans being blown to blood when watching "The Ninth District" is simply because the image of humans in this movie does not conform to our moral and emotional views. We treat the Zerg here as humans, and treat humans as aliens. But this does not mean that they will die.
Different races, races that can communicate, have a common way of thinking with us; races of different races, non-communicable races, have unpredictable behavioral thinking patterns.
Our killings of the former are mostly based on greedy ambitions or misunderstandings. As for the latter, I think most of it is out of self-protection.
Suppose that early in the morning, you go to the front door to pick up a newspaper, and suddenly you see a creature like a bug in the "Ninth District" flying towards you. At this time, you remember that you still have a revolver pinned to your waist-would you choose to draw a gun and shoot? I know I will, even if it might really just want to give me a hug.
Human nature is derived from the survival instinct, so it is inevitably greedy and cowardly, defensive and ambition of foreign races, and uncontrollable fear of foreign races. These are the weaknesses of human nature.
But the fascinating thing about human nature is that after we have seen a lot of ugliness, we can always find something warm. It is like the steel rose at the end of the film, although it is metal and derived from garbage. But it is a rose after all.
View more about District 9 reviews
