The Planetary Government’s chief scientific adviser released his committee’s report, Dirty Energy Polluters and How They Must Be Stopped, yesterday, putting the case that the dominant, industrialising life-form of a planet in a remote solar system, in a distant galaxy, must be destroyed in order to protect the planet’s subordinate life-forms. The scientific consensus, based on observing the component gases of the planet’s atmosphere over the last century, asserted that a rise in atmospheric CO2, from a very tiny percentage to a slightly less tiny percentage, was probably warming the plant by a further degree or two, possibly spelling almost certain doom to much of the planet’s life. Accordingly, the Government’s only option was to build a design and construct of inter-galactic vehicles immediately, travel to the distant planet, identify the dominant industrialising life-form, exterminate them, and return home to be applauded by descendants who will have learnt in the hives and schools and history texts how their forebears, many generations in the past, had travelled to a distant galaxy in a noble cause—whilst bankrupting their posterity.
In a rowdy global government assembly, the opposition leader said:
I must oppose this interfering and needless expense, which is based on some unproven and untested computer-modelling and supported only by pseudoscientific theories from proselytising proponents of socio-political advocacy instead of true science based on empirical data, in order to fund an unnecessary and aggressive expedition to a distant solar system in order to impose our own, alien values on a planet which might be undergoing perfectly natural variations. For aught I know, the dominant species, if there be one—for there is no evidence that the carbon dioxide levels may not be either natural or a deliberate policy of a federation of species in order to provide a better environment for life-forms which utilise carbon dioxide—if, as I say, there be just one dominant, technologically-advanced species, it might be acting with meritorious and kindly intent. Anyway, who are we to interfere even if their over-industrialising ways endanger themselves? Are we the galaxies’ nursemaid who must rush hither and thither all over the universe in order to rectify others’ mistakes? Are there no problems in our own nests and hives that can’t be put right? Can’t our government think of no other issue across our own solar system that needs some attention? It makes my ichor boil and sends a shiver down my chiton to think of the communities at home who would love to have a tiny fraction of the billions which our Government plans to spend on this far-fetched expedition, all to be paid by a new and oppressive tax, over countless generations to come, which the Nanny-in-Chief promised before the last election she would not impose.The Nanny-in-Chief responded last night that the opposition leader was a known denier, who did not accept scientific consensus, and that all right-thinking citizens would deplore his racist, extremist, anti-progress rhetoric. She added that the proposal to wipe out any species which slightly increased the percentage of trace gases in its atmosphere was predicated on the sound ethical principle that any technologically advanced species which might adversely affect its own environment, if allowed to develop towards inter-galactic capability, could not be trusted not to attack the ecosystems of other planets elsewhere in the galaxy. “By annihilating the entire society, we shall send a clear message which says, ‘don’t annihilate entire societies’,” she explained.
See Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists”, by Ian Sample, a “science correspondent”, in The Guardian:
See also WUWT and “Some important points of clarification” and “Part II”.Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth’s atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers [from NASA!] explain.