People with the same political affiliation do not see eye-to-eye and have different definitions for 'benevolent' and 'heaven.'

I had a fascinating talk with a liberal man of 25 who is on the autistic spectrum this week. I started off the conversation by saying, "My version of heaven is Star Trek. I just love that universe, the diversity, the danger, the excitement, and all of humanity working toward a common goal."

He responded with this comment: "My vision of heaven involves benevolent aliens that make Star Trek people look like a bunch of primitives. Just one example: Titanships, i.e., city-sized space ships. Some of them would carry planet buster bombs."

I could have let it go, but anyone that knows me knows that I can't resist these kinds of conversations. So I took a bite, and I said, "But are they benevolent? If so, why do 'benevolent' aliens need planet buster bombs?"

He quickly responded, "Not all of the titanships belong to the benevolent aliens. They also had to learn pretty quickly how to defend themselves from foreign threats."

Well, now I was committed. I said, "So the planet buster bombs are strictly defense only? Do they try diplomacy at all with the malevolent Titanships? And are the malevolent Titanships homogenous in their authority? Or are there some benevolent aliens mixed in with the malevolent ones who are forced to toe the line? And regarding those benevolent ones (if they exist), do they get punished for being enslaved by the malevolent aliens? In other words, are the benevolent aliens guilty of killing some benevolent peoples who (through no fault of their own) are forced to go along with the malevolent aliens?

Then he said (evasively), "The benevolent aliens would just as soon not look at a planet buster bomb, but the rest of that universe is not so kind. The planet buster bombs were not invented by them, and they would not want to use something so destructive unless they had to repel a god machine."

So I asked him, "Are they homogenous in thought? Or do they have differences of opinion between themselves? Do the people who live on their planets have free will to do whatever they want without fear of any reprisal? Or do they live in fear of the powerful supposedly benevolent aliens?"

He replied, "The benevolent aliens are powerful and indeed very difficult to challenge but they mostly guide planets within their influence like a much bigger sibling. They do not have differing thoughts, but the thought of fighting amongst themselves never crossed their minds before they discovered how savage the universe could be and even after that, the benevolent aliens were appalled at the thought of fighting one another over anything. They are also silicon-based plants."

I asked, "So what if people don't want guidance from these benevolent plant aliens? Are they free to tell them to leave?"

He said, "Yes, but if the people in question are destroying themselves, then the benevolent aliens may step in anyway to prevent the destruction."

Then I said, "So...these benevolent aliens are servants? They clean up the mess that people make?"

He replied, "It's more of a parent/child relationship I suppose. They want the universe's creatures to prosper and so they nurture them where possible, but they would not clean up the Earth like that. Humanity would have to deal with cleaning up its own planet, but it would be given the tools to make that vastly easier."

And I said, "Okay, but what if they were given the tools and the people said, 'Fuck off. I don't wanna. I wanna play video games!"

He replied, "They also silently observe until a planet with multicellular life reaches a suitable level of technology after which they make a greeting and if it is met peacefully, that civilization is slowly brought into the fold."

To which I said, "So they spy on planets without permission, and then they engage in colonialization, which is what you are talking about. Saving the savages from themselves?"

He said, "If the civilization says no, they say 'but you have to' and find a way to convince them to be reasonable to their world. They inform them of the horrible things out there, and how it would benefit them to accept protection."

And then I said, "So a dictatorship then? You aren't given a choice, so that is authoritarian. And then the fear-mongering is just a protection racket engaged in by tyrannical plants."

He was getting frustrated with me at this point, and he said, "For example, humanity is sort of destroying their world right now, so if they fell under the benevolent aliens's gaze, they may step in to improve things. I could also argue that humanity has lost the privilege of governing themselves currently."

I said, "Wow, that is a dictatorship. Should I call you 'the Fuhrer'?"

He wrote, "Work would be optional, and all possible basic needs would be covered, but if someone wanted to do work they would be compensated appropriately and be able to buy various luxuries. They would definitely be kind aliens who guide with a gentle touch."

"Gentle touch?" I said, "Unless they needed to use planet-busting bombs."

He replied, "I meant to say that they don't want anything to do with the planet buster bombs. That was one example of advanced weaponry."

Then I said, "It doesn't make sense. Anything that is benevolent has no need for weapons. And your aliens would eventually start to be worshiped as gods. Then there would be state religion. And if that was stamped out, then you are talking about controlling a person's beliefs on a fundamental level. And the threat from beyond that requires a need to protect against sounds horrible. It sounds like something similar to Warhammer 40k, a grim dark future, filled with monsters who are consumed with violence and evil. In that world, war is constant."

He replied, "Their need for weapons is retaliatory. They would never use them otherwise."

And then my friend Jed, who is a lawyer, jumped into our conversation. He said, "So...not every crime deserves the death penalty. Such capital regimes are quickly twisted to favor the corrupt. One way to examine all this is to ask if it really is a utopia like you claim? Even in Star Trek, not everyone is happy despite it being a post-scarcity society. Additionally, with humanity a lot is put upon our ability to adapt and change over time. If an alien species came in and stuck us all in a 'good place' a good number of people would still revolt. Also, how would you measure harm? Would the system punish someone who had to push an old lady into traffic to save a baby? And if the option was to go back to space, would they be like the aliens from 'The World's End,' where they tear everything down on the way out?"

He replied, "The silicon plants would probably be too vested in Earth at that point to leave. And then they would explain the ramifications of what would happen if they did."

So then I said, "You are describing an authoritarian dystopia. This is your heaven? If that is the case, then you can count me out. We have very different definitions of what heaven looks like, what 'good' is, and what 'benevolent' means. We are quite simply, not even speaking the same language."

The conversation continued on for some time, but you get the gist of it in what I've placed above. Now, the reason I indicated that the friend was liberal way up above, is to show you how people who share the same political affiliation, do not see eye to eye. I describe myself as liberal as well, and this dude with the plant aliens and myself are so far apart by word definitions, and (for that matter) what each envisions as a heaven that it surprised...nay...even shocked me. I'm rather thankful that I don't live in the universe that he dreams lovingly about (and he says he does love the idea of it).