Sorry since we're getting off topic, but I can't help myself. In fact, cyborgs are a dead-end branch of development, and the lowest stage. In fact, it might explain that the Thargoids are someone's cyborgs, someone created them, maybe it's an evolution of the same Guardians.... Humans are inherently inert in their thinking, but sometimes they can't help it.
For us perhaps, assuming that is correct, which itself is debatable, but who knows what another species might achieve with them? Again we fall into the trap of judging everything by our own standards. As well as confusing the concept with the implementation. Using a bad implementation of an idea to reject the idea itself. It's a common fallacy.
I don't know that the Thargoids are cyborgs as such, but we do know they interface directly with their ships because that's what the Azimuth experiments were all about, trying to plug humans into captured Scout ships. I see them as more like the Shadows plugging telepaths into their ships in Babylon 5, maybe with an implanted neural interface to help connect but not a cyborg, just as D2/Seo Jin-Ae has an implant but is not a cyborg either.
You misunderstand me. I guess you don't keep up with the technology in the world. About 25 years ago, I said that dental implants are a dope and it's only because of the backwardness of medicine.
Actually I was referring to their behaviour towards each other and to humans. Indeed sadistic behaviour has been observed in all social vertebrates.
Not absolutely everything being developed all the time, no, but then I doubt you do either.
I didn't misunderstand you, I just question your assumptions. I do like the idea of growing new teeth though, a few of mine could do with replacing.
What we would call sadistic, you mean. And on that note so has cooperative behaviour.
So you wouldn't say that a high caste female baboon taking the infant from a low caste female baboon, deliberately causing pain to the infant causing it to scream. Deliberately within sight of the mother is sadistic?
What we would call sadistic, I said. It's a human concept.
I remember the history of the guards. When they learned the Thargoid language and tried to negotiate with them and realized it was impossible. At that time I decided that the Thargoids were animals after all, organized but animals.
And well documented throughout primate behaviour. Define sadistic behaviour, it's primarily about expressing dominance and thus common to all social vertibrates.
They were on a Thargoid barnacle site, and we know Thargoids react violently to that so it could just be that they were ignored. When not invading Thargoid territory at the time, we don't know what is possible.
That's what Salvation thought too, and even he admitted he was wrong in the end and said they were not just animals but more intelligent than he had previously given them credit for. Then he went on to criticise them for their lack of ambition, by which he meant the desire to subjugate or destroy others.
The point is that animals have no concept of it, they just do what they do. Calling it sadism, cooperation or even altruism is a human label and a human interpretation.
I wrote that they are more organized, but we can't judge whether they are smart or not from our perspective.
I disagree with you that they are merely animals. And although the Thargoids interface with their ships to "become one with them", I don't think they are any more an organism than a human pilot would be if they could control a plane through a neural interface at the speed of thought. Remember that the pilots were separated from their ships and experimented on by both Azimuth and INRA. That means they don't need a ship to survive, therefore they and the ship are not a single organism.
So your argument is that they don't speak English?
I know what you mean. And I agree with your opinion when one of the interceptors ganks the other. Not kill them to survive, but gank them for their own amusement.
No I am saying it is a human label, animals don't rationalise it like that. And please do not compare me to a creationist. You're as wrong about that as you were about my pet ownership and you are now bordering on abuse.
That kind of thing, yes.
Possibly, I know English is not your first language but I think we broadly agree on that point at least.
