Talk:Zoo hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Edit[edit]

  • I don't like messing in anothers work, but it strikes me strongly that the order of relevancy and exposition in this article is ass-backwards. The older references like Clarkes, should be cited first, etc. chronologically.
  • I also doubt the list is anywhere near complete, you might want to fling the question to some long time editors like Judy Lynn DelRay at DelRay Books, and James Baen of Baen books. Both were editing when most us startrek watchers were still living at home before highschool.
  • IIRC, The DelRays also compiled a history of sciencefiction that is encyclopedaic in scope. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)
  • Probably should limit it to especially poignant examples of 'zoo' to illustrate the point. I'd suggest that starcraft, for example, is excessive. I had half a mind to put in Homeworld as a doomed Zoo.~~
  • What about a blerb that discusses how south park portrayed this hypothesis as earth being an elaborate reality show for an alien race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.107.41 (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Olaf Stapledon[edit]

  • I found a reference in Stapledon's 1937 novel Star Maker which almost perfectly encapsulates the zoo hypothesis, so I added a note here, and over at the prime directive article as well. The full extract is here[1] Steve (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Major editorial work coming[edit]

I plan to subsume the current article's content into a History section and provide some non-fiction referrence.Julzes (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

While my idea is probably correct, it's been brought to my attention that I'm not actually doing anything. If anybody else wants to, it would be good. The article as it now stands is very weak.Julzes (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is true[edit]

If the zoo hypothesis is true, couldn't it explain a lot of abductions? If aliens are watching us from afar, and they see that we are getting close to discovering them or are getting to nosy, wouldnt they abduct us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.63.195 (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems likely to me that super-intelligent civilizations would not need to stage such risky abductions. It does sound like something humans would do if we discovered life elsewhere, but I suspect we will have better methods by the time we master interstellar travel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phinizyspalding (talkcontribs) 22:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, obviously. "Abduction" is a crude trope of crackpots, a civilization millions of years advanced beyond us would have no need for such crude measures to find stuff out and may very well have seeded/directed human evolution and have no need for such "examinations". These things (abduction stories) have been fairly conclusively established as an artifact of the social layer that produces them. I am reminded of my late stepfather who could not be dissuaded from his opinion that there were mirror planets to the existing ones in the solar system. Telling him that if there were we would know because that's how the outer planets were discovered (by their gravitational effects) was pointless. Phinizyspalding, I indented your entry. You should also sign them with four tildes. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
(Chimpanzees' Tea Party Sub-Hypothesis): Actually what I find mildly interesting is your apparent illogical belief that one can 'prove' anything in this area, in this case your apparent belief that alien abduction has been 'proved' to be a purely social phenomenon (or to use your exact words, 'fairly conclusively established as an artifact of the social layer that produces them'). Suppose, purely for the sake of argument, that aliens are abducting humans, presumably for reasons best known to themselves. Then they are presumably perfectly capable of arranging pseudo-proofs adequate to satisfy wishful thinkers who don't want abductions to be happening, or are terrified of being ridiculed as 'crackpots' if they don't deny that abductions are happening, or whatever. It should be obvious that we can't prove that we aren't being deceived by some such pseudo-proof, and that consequently the belief (that we can 'prove' that abduction is a purely social phenomenon) is yet another instance of humankind's tendency towards illogical self-delusion (as instanced by most or all of our religions/quasi-religions/ideologies, including the belief that abductions are happening and the belief that they aren't, as well as the belief that Aliens are out there, and the belief that they aren't). As for what the hypothetical Aliens' motive might be, who knows? But seen as this discussion is supposed to be about the Zoo Hypothesis, I do recall that when I was a kid one of the most popular things at the Zoo was the Chimpanzees' Tea Party, in which people laughed at chimps being rather like humans but in a way seen as funny. So maybe the Aliens abduct some of us and then the entire Galaxy gets to laugh its head off at the absurd ways we go about deluding ourselves that it hasn't happened.
As this Talk section is supposed to be about improving the article, I would suggest that this "Chimpanzees' Tea Party Sub-Hypothesis" is a sub-hypothesis of the 'Zoo Hypothesis', and would make a useful subsection in the article which can and should be included if and when any so-called Reliable Sources are found that discuss it and/or anything similar, so I would appeal to other editors to let us all know whether any such Reliable Sources currently exist, or to do so if and when such sources come into being sometime in the future. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this really paranormal?[edit]

I think of this as science, although it is an unproven hypothesis. However, it is one that is pretty firmly grounded in scientific evidence. Placing it under paranormal trivializes it.

Also, I was thrilled to see the recent edits/additions to the page. More work needs to be done, but it is becoming the most extensive information readily available on the matter, which is unfortunate. I wrote an editorial to Sky and Telescope about this that they should publish in the next couple of magazines.

Interestingly, I thought of this whole scenario independently when I was about 19, and I have been searching for information about it ever sense. I think is time for people to take it more seriously.

Simulation hypothesis[edit]

If the oldest civilization still present in the Milky Way has, for example, a 100-million-year time advantage over the next oldest civilization, then it is conceivable that they could be in the singular position of being able to control, monitor, influence or isolate the emergence of every civilization that follows within their sphere of influence. This is analogous to what happens on Earth within our own civilization on a daily basis, in that everyone born on this planet is born into a pre-existing system of familial associations, customs, traditions and laws that were already long established before our birth and which we have little or no control over.

A very interesting point. And in a loose way, it nicely segues into the foundation of the simulation hypothesis. An advanced civilization with that much control would be able to control the fabric of reality. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)