I'll start it off...

No: To come out with the news all at once would be a bad idea. People rely on the certainty of the known and generally steer away from what is uncomfortable or uncanny. That is why it works in horror or sci-fi, because it's an escape in the form of entertainment. However, if one's own reality is changed to such a degree, it becomes existentially overpowering and leads to extreme forms of dread and anxiety, because one's old notion of self, society, and the universe has been ripped asunder so suddenly.

Yes: People have a right to know the truth regarding something as existentially relevant as other intelligent life in the universe, full stop. If governments have known this and were hiding it, it is a kind of immoral act, whereby people's ontological perspective was not properly informed. People have a right to knowledge of their place in the universe, and the hiding of truth for any purpose would be an incredible act of deception.

Alternatives to "all-at-once" disclosure: Put themes that are true in movies, books, entertainment, and media so that these concepts are already in the cultural milieu. This would be a very soft disclosure. The only problem with this approach is that if the information does get disclosed eventually, people will think, at the beginning of the process, that the ones disclosing it cannot be serious because it sounds like the plot of a sci-fi story, rather than the other way around (the sci-fi was based on fact, and the tale was wagging the dog). After that, provide evidence of anomalous objects. Then, provide evidence of recovered craft or reverse-engineered technology. Finally, disclose the NHI themselves.

I'd like some coherent story of what these NHI people are doing here. Are they getting us ready to join the interstellar community? — checking that the quarantine is holding? —eco-bio research? ...

I'm looking for a plausible reason for them to deal with governments and hide from people. That's a hard ask, I think, but important to the credibility of the 'revelations'. I can see why paranoid governments would want to keep secrets from us, but aliens - not so much.

I'm afraid I'm not quite playing the yes/no game, but that's because I'm not sure who is in charge of these revelations, the governments or the aliens?

I'd like some coherent story of what these NHI people are doing here. Are they getting us ready to join the interstellar community? — checking that the quarantine is holding? —eco-bio research? ... — unenlightened

Good questions. Let's say it's something along the lines of what you're suggesting. Earth is still a developing planet. They monitor our technology and cultural evolution to determine when it will be time to integrate us into the larger Galactic Alliance. That is why many of them send probes and craft to nuclear facilities and military bases. They have strategic bases underwater, as well as others elsewhere in the solar system, where information is relayed back. Some of them also travel in ways that could be described as interdimensional, but that opens up a whole other topic.

I'm afraid I'm not quite playing the yes/no game, but that's because I'm not sure who is in charge of these revelations, the governments or the aliens? — unenlightened

Let's say some of the NHI are pushing for disclosure to happen sooner, which creates significant disagreement among the factions and also with Earth’s governments. Most of the ones in charge continue to follow the directive to allow Earth to develop more on its own, believing that humanity is not ready. Governments like those of the USA, China, and Russia definitely want it hidden, since they are engaged in a technological race for superiority in travel, fuel, and weapons.

I'd like some coherent story of what these NHI people are doing here. — unenlightened

This is fun! But, like @unenlightened, I require more information before I could have an intelligent opinion. This is quite often the case with so-called "magical hypotheses," in which you're presented with some outrageous counterfactual situation (usually ethical) and then asked "What should you do?" All one can say is, "I have no idea, given this scanty data. Can you tell me why the brain is in the vat / why the people are on the trolley line / why the evil Programmer has put me on Twin Earth . . .?" etc. etc.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/987916

Does this help?

Sure. And I don't really know how much info I'd need before some insight crystallized. One missing piece (or maybe you already said?): It sounds like there's a great deal of amity and cooperation among and between both the NHI groups and the Earth nations (USA, China, Russia, all getting along well on this topic). Is that part of what you want us to imagine? I can't help feeling that needs its own explanation, and it would definitely have a bearing on how a roll-out of disclosure might go.

It sounds like there's a great deal of amity and cooperation among and between both the NHI groups and the Earth nations (USA, China, Russia, all getting along well on this topic). Is that part of what you want us to imagine? I can't help feeling that needs its own explanation, and it would definitely have a bearing on how a roll-out of disclosure might go. — J

Let's say for this, some governments only have craft and some have both NHI and craft. The ones with NHI and craft have a few representatives who were willing to stay behind to help explain some of the technology, but they aren't necessarily friendly or fully forthcoming, though they have provided some help for reasons that remain unknown. Let's say a certain faction of aliens is also prone to experimenting on humans or using them for hybridization projects. Maybe they need something humans have, or perhaps they are simply studying and comparing various biological phenomena.

Most of the abduction claims, then, would be related to these NHI conducting experiments, mostly the Greys. The governments are especially afraid that people will find out they made a deal with the NHI to gain technology and to prevent disclosure before they are ready to inform the public. Generally, as stated earlier, the NHI are fine with this arrangement because they don't think humans are ready. They also need to conduct more experiments and do not want to interfere too much, so they require a degree of secrecy without disclosure. This is why they interfere with the hippocampus of abductees, in order to suppress their memories of what happened.

Good questions. Let's say it's something along the lines of what you're suggesting. — schopenhauer1

Have you seen Villeneuve's film Arrival?

Have you seen Villeneuve's film Arrival? — Leontiskos

I think clips of it, but haven't seen the whole movie, no. Is that similar? Also, I've heard the Three-Body Problem is another interesting one.

- I have also heard that Three-Body Problem is interesting, although I have not seen that one. As with so much of Villeneuve's work, Arrival is great. The plot is closely related to the way you answered that question, but with a few important twists. I won't spoil it for you since I think you would probably enjoy the film.

Nice, thanks. Do you have an answer to the initial OP or follow-up posts regarding the ethics of disclosure?

I would ask how the fiduciary duties of democratically elected officials impinge on these epistemic questions. In some cases there would be an obligation to inform one's constituents. I'm not quite sure what those cases would be.

Getting away from the hypothetical, hasn't Trump leaked or nodded towards some of that classified information? My sense is that there would be a lot of obscurity at each level of the epistemic question of NHI's, such that there would be a significant risk of creating more confusion and disarray if the evidence isn't watertight.* This is especially true in the era of deepfakes. It would basically blow the top off the discussions we have been having on faith and belief on the grounds of another's testimony. :lol:

* Edit: Think about it this way: there is a significant power differential between the rulers of nation states and the common man. For this reason there is a level of distrust and suspicion on the part of the common man, in large part because he knows that he does not know how much more powerful these rulers are than himself, and he nevertheless knows that they are immensely more powerful. That same dynamic would obtain between humans and NHIs, but probably to a much greater degree. Honestly, we who believe in spiritual intelligences (angels, demons, etc.) have been reckoning with these ideas for thousands of years. Cf. Galatians 1:8

I would ask how the fiduciary duties of democratically elected officials impinge on these epistemic questions. In some cases there would be an obligation to inform one's constituents. I'm not quite sure what those cases would be. — Leontiskos

I guess we would have to define what would be considered immoral to omit versus what could be justified for the "greater good." For example, I think we can all agree it is moral to keep nuclear secrets from the majority of the population. But something as world-changing as the existence of NHI would seem immoral to keep from the public. Of course, the scenario I describe is a classic case of self-interest versus the greater good. The companies and governments working on recovered craft might want the information securely hidden, while keeping such an extraordinary discovery from the public would deprive people of rightful knowledge about the actual nature of the universe and the science behind it.

Getting away from the hypothetical, hasn't Trump leaked or nodded towards some of that classified information? My sense is that there would be a lot of obscurity at each level of the epistemic question of NHI's, such that there would be a significant risk of creating more confusion and disarray if the evidence isn't watertight. This is especially true in the era of deepfakes. It would basically blow the top off the discussions we have been having on faith and belief on the grounds of another's testimony. :lol: — Leontiskos

There is a UAP Task Force in the US House right now addressing this issue. These are real Congressional panels. A hearing under oath was supposed to take place today but was postponed. There are meetings in a SCIF with departments from the DoD (AARO) and the FBI, who are investigating alleged wrongdoing by contractors said to be working on this. These contractors are also alleged to have committed criminal acts on behalf of themselves and the Intelligence community in order to keep it a secret.

Here's some source material so you know I am not bullshitting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyZP9wdkfG8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVdux73iJEk

https://www.askapoluaps.com/podcast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAxI-LDrDqA&t=1s

keeping such an extraordinary discovery from the public would be depriving people of rightful knowledge to the actual ontology of the universe, and the science thereof. — schopenhauer1

People have a right to know the truth regarding something as existentially relevant as other intelligent life in the universe, full stop. If governments have known this and were hiding it, it is a kind of immoral act, whereby people's ontological perspective was not properly informed. People have a right to knowledge of their place in the universe, and the hiding of truth for any purpose would be an incredible act of deception. — schopenhauer1

I'm not really convinced that we have a natural right to any piece of knowledge based merely on its existential or ontological import. I think we might have a positive right to such knowledge, and within a pure democracy that positive right would derive from the will of the people.

But if you want to dial up the notion of "ontological shock" in the context of natural rights to knowledge, then I wonder if the parent-child relationship is more apt. For example, what is the morality involved in telling your child that Santa Claus does not exist? Or that they were adopted? Or that humans do not come from storks? Or that NHIs are real in the way that the OP describes?

The parent has a responsibility to the entire welfare of their child, including its developmental stages. Therefore they have a responsibility to balance the goods of knowledge against the dangers of inappropriate appropriations of that knowledge. In the Orthodox tradition Satan orchestrated the Fall precisely by giving Adam and Eve the knowledge of Good and Evil too early and too quickly. That knowledge was always their inheritance, but to receive one's inheritance in an untimely way can be fatal.

There is a UAP Taskforce in the US House right now regarding it. These are real Congressional panels. A hearing (under oath) was supposed to take place today but was postponed.

...

Here's some source material so you know I am not bullshitting — schopenhauer1

Very interesting! I am not inclined to doubt any of that.

(Edited my previous post a bit)

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Thoughtful response, thanks.

I'm not really convinced that we have a natural right to any piece of knowledge based merely on its existential or ontological import. I think we might have a positive right to such knowledge, and within a pure democracy that positive right would derive from the will of the people. — Leontiskos

Sure, but how would the "will of the people" be discerned if they never even knew about it? It's a bit of a conundrum. And I tend to agree with the conception of positive rights here. For example, we can talk about the "right to an education." Why should someone not be deprived of a basic public education? Is it just so they have a chance to function within society and gain resources (though that’s a good reason)? Or is there something about knowledge itself that is simply valuable- something that is just good to know?

But if you want to dial up the notion of "ontological shock" in the context of natural rights to knowledge, then I wonder if the parent-child relationship is more apt. For example, what is the morality involved in telling your child that Santa Claus does not exist? Or that they were adopted? Or that humans do not come from storks? Or that NHIs are real in the way that the OP describes? — Leontiskos

Indeed, good questions. Notice that your questions involve parent-child relationships. The idea of a "white lie" comes to mind here. But should adults be deprived of important knowledge in the same way children are? Who gets to make that decision? As stated, it can't be the "will of the people" in this case.

The parent has a responsibility to the entire welfare of their child, including its developmental stages. Therefore they have a responsibility to balance the goods of knowledge against the dangers of inappropriate appropriations of that knowledge. In the Orthodox tradition Satan orchestrated the Fall precisely by giving Adam and Eve the knowledge of Good and Evil too early and too quickly. That knowledge was always their inheritance, but to receive one's inheritance in an untimely way can be fatal. — Leontiskos

True. So, do you think this would justify holding back disclosure, given the potential consequences of ontological shock?

Sure, but how would the "will of the people" be discerned if they never even knew about it? It's a bit of a conundrum. — schopenhauer1

It's a conundrum but I don't see it as insuperable. There is a tension between sensitive or classified information and the right to information, but there are ways in which the balance can shift. Basically, as long as the elected leaders have democratic values then they will see transparency as an important part of governance. In democracies a shift in that balance is often occasioned by a whistleblower.

But what's interesting about some of your posts is that they remind me of Star Trek, where exploration and knowledge is the actual goal and therefore the tax-funded exploration initiatives naturally have an epistemic responsibility to the taxpayers. That's a really interesting model given that way that scientific research has become bound up with the funding provided by nation states, but I tend to see that as a corruption of science precisely because the governments do not have the same goals as the Star Trek explorers. Granted, I think it would be great if our governments were more concerned with speculative knowledge.

And I tend to agree with the conception of positive rights here. For example, we can talk about the "right to an education." Why should someone not be deprived of a basic public education? Is it just so they have a chance to function within society and gain resources (though that’s a good reason)? Or is there something about knowledge itself that is simply valuable- something that is just good to know? — schopenhauer1

It's not that I think children lack a "right" to knowledge or education. These are goods proper to the human being. The difficulty is that rights are correlative with duties, and I think it is primarily the parents who bear the duty for providing these liberal and speculative goods. As you say, the government may have an interest in improving citizens' "function within society" but I'm not sure modern governments have an interest in what Aristotle would call contemplative goods (i.e. goods of knowledge or understanding that are not instrumental unto some ulterior end).

Indeed, good questions. Notice that your questions involve parent-child relationships. The idea of a "white lie" comes to mind here. But should adults be deprived of important knowledge in the same way children are? Who gets to make that decision? As stated, it can't be the "will of the people" in this case. — schopenhauer1

In a democratic Republic like the United States I think the people decide who gets to make that decision by electing them. In that sense the will of the people does inform the decision.

Is the President-citizen relationship similar to the parent-child relationship insofar as the former is empowered to decide what sort of information the latter is capable of receiving? I think the two relationships are similar in that way. I think the whole idea of classified information depends on that empowerment.

True. So, do you think this would justify holding back disclosure information, given the potential consequences of ontological shock? — schopenhauer1

I think so. It is a variable that certainly can't be discounted. You say:

Of course, the scenario I describe is a classic case of self-interest versus the greater good. The companies and governments working on recovered craft might want the information securely hidden, while keeping such an extraordinary discovery from the public would deprive people of rightful knowledge about the actual nature of the universe and the science behind it. — schopenhauer1

Is self-interest vs. the greater good the correct polarity? If there were a "pro and con" list for releasing the information, what would that list look like? I do agree that the government has an interest and even a kind of defeasible obligation to tell its citizens the truth, but I don't think that obligation is... well... indefeasible. :nerd:

National Security is a solid argument; we don't want the power wielded by our enemies, and the people through their elected representatives want National Security. If it wasn't for this, the people should know what their money is being spent on - I don't think the shock would be too damaging, and would be momentary - for future generations it would be normal, and they would be living through a new enlightenment.

By the way, Three Body Problem is good. The ending left us in suspense, and the second season isn't coming out until almost a year's time.

but I tend to see that as a corruption of science precisely because the governments do not have the same goals as the Star Trek explorers. Granted, I think it would be great if our governments were more concerned with speculative knowledge. — Leontiskos

Yes, so if the true "Good" in this situation is purely for knowledge's sake, meaning understanding more about the actual ontology of the universe rather than our externally limited view, then it would seem that this reason is instrumental. The question is, what kinds of instrumental values would override the Good of pure understanding? I see that @Down The Rabbit Hole said it’s justified when it's for the sake of national security:

National Security is a solid argument; we don't want the power wielded by our enemies, and the people through their elected representatives want National Security. — Down The Rabbit Hole

But can't disclosure happen without revealing full knowledge of potentially destructive capabilities? Surely, they have overstepped their duty to ensure safety, and perhaps have done so for self-interested or even nefarious reasons, rather than acting in the public's interest.

In a democratic Republic like the United States I think the people decide who gets to make that decision by electing them. In that sense the will of the people does inform the decision.

Is the President-citizen relationship similar to the parent-child relationship insofar as the former is empowered to decide what sort of information the latter is capable of receiving? I think the two relationships are similar in that way. I think the whole idea of classified information depends on that empowerment. — Leontiskos

Notice the tension here. You first say that "the people" get to decide, but then note that in certain republics, like the United States, it is actually the President, or more accurately, the Executive Branch departments, who make those decisions and act as gatekeepers of information. It becomes clear that if technology exists which could benefit private companies or contractors, there may be serious conflicts of interest. The gatekeepers hold immensely powerful information that the people arguably have a right to know. As you mentioned, it is the taxpayers funding these efforts. It is their military, their taxes, and their interests that are supposed to be protected, not the priorities of a select group of insiders within private contractors, the military, or the intelligence community.

Yes, so if the true "Good" in this situation is purely for knowledge's sake, meaning understanding more about the actual ontology of the universe rather than our externally limited view, then it would seem that this reason is instrumental. The question is, what kinds of instrumental values would override the Good of pure understanding? — schopenhauer1

Well, the other question is whether the government is interested in the good of pure understanding at all. I was saying that our government would probably never fund Star Trek. Our government doesn't aim at that good.

I see that Down The Rabbit Hole said it’s justified when it's for the sake of national security — schopenhauer1

Yes, I think that's a good consideration.

Notice the tension here. You first say that "the people" get to decide — schopenhauer1

Oh, I certainly did not say that. I said, "the people decide who gets to make that decision [about knowledge-access] by electing them." The people don't get to decide what information to declassify, but they do get do decide who makes that decision, namely the persons they elect. I don't see that as a bad form of government, especially if we agree that some information should be classified.

I don't see that as a bad form of government, especially if we agree that some information should be classified. — Leontiskos

But the tension still exists. What happens when important information is hidden without a justified reason? If checks and balances are truly effective in limiting each branch, then Congress absolutely should be getting to the bottom of it, especially if the Executive Branch is withholding critical information unnecessarily or for self-serving reasons.

But the tension still exists. — schopenhauer1

I'm not convinced that there is any possible world in which no tension exists between the classification of information and the free flow of information. Do you have an idea about how to create a system where no piece of information that should be public would ever be classified? I should think errors are inevitable even before corruption enters the picture.

Do you have an idea about how to create a system where no piece of information that should be public would ever be classified? I should think errors are inevitable even before corruption enters the picture. — Leontiskos

There are "errors," and then there are glaring errors. In this case, the omission would amount to a systematic denial of a foundational and world-changing ontological understanding of reality. That doesn’t even begin to account for the decades during which the information could have been disclosed but wasn’t. So much knowledge and understanding has been lost.

Beyond that, if we return to purely instrumental concerns, the extreme compartmentalization of information, in which even different floors of the same program are unaware of each other's work on UAP or NHI, prevents real scientific progress. Problems can’t be solved effectively when the broader academic and scientific community is shut out. Without many minds and disciplines working together, breakthroughs are stifled before they even begin.

Were it up to me to disclose anything to anybody, I'd advise the aliens that they get the hell away from this solar system at warp speed before a) something bad happens to them and/or b) they acquire some of our very bad traits.

It would be clear to long-time planetary observers that our species possessed considerable intelligence as an admixture of brains and primitive behavior which would make us unsuitable as participants in enlightened societies.

Now, IF these intelligent aliens insisted on hanging around earth, I would suspect that they were pursuing a plan to exploit our animal behaviors in some way not to our advantage.. Perhaps they need some low value soldiers in a war. They would have recognized soon that we could be coaxed into berserker behavior. We have reached a large population from which enough crazy berserker-types could be recruited. And if the rate of human death in the alien's war were quite high, so what? What good were we to them?

High levels of intelligence and technology do not tell us much about the state of the aliens' hearts (if they even have hearts). They could be bright, shiny, and ever so smart but still be children of the Prince of Darkness (to employ earthenware).

Now, IF these intelligent aliens insisted on hanging around earth, I would suspect that they were pursuing a plan to exploit our animal behaviors in some way not to our advantage.. Perhaps they need some low value soldiers in a war. They would have recognized soon that we could be coaxed into berserker behavior. We have reached a large population from which enough crazy berserker-types could be recruited. And if the rate of human death in the alien's war were quite high, so what? What good were we to them?

High levels of intelligence and technology do not tell us much about the state of the aliens' hearts (if they even have hearts). They could be bright, shiny, and ever so smart but still be children of the Prince of Darkness (to employ earthenware). — BC

No doubt, if abductions are real, that seems more than a little invasive. I would imagine NHI may not share our notion of personal autonomy. Perhaps they see us as too primitive to warrant concern. You make a good point: advanced technology does not necessarily imply good intent. We might hope they are more "enlightened," but that could mean very different things depending on context. An advanced race desperate for certain resources or forms of knowledge might not value what we assume they would, especially when judged by the moral standards of modernity.

Then there is the ethical issue of parts of the Executive Branch operating with no Congressional oversight. Some programs, including black operations, are completely inaccessible to review. That creates real danger.

But can't disclosure happen without revealing full knowledge of potentially destructive capabilities? Surely, they have overstepped their duty to ensure safety, and perhaps have done so for self-interested or even nefarious reasons, rather than acting in the public's interest. — schopenhauer1

Well that's the security services' job, national security, not the taking of other things into consideration. Maybe the small risk of disclosing is outweighed by the greater good of this reality altering knowledge, and we need our elected representatives to push for it.

There may only be a small risk that our enemies look to capture the technology, either by capturing their own crafts or having agents infiltrate our facilities for the knowledge to reverse engineer it. The rich and those they employ would also be after it, which could then end up with our enemies.

There may only be a small risk that our enemies look to capture the technology, either by capturing their own crafts or having agents infiltrate our facilities for the knowledge to reverse engineer it. The rich and those they employ would also be after it, which could then end up with our enemies. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Presumably, the countries with the budgets and personnel to handle this situation have already been doing so. It’s clearly up to a public that is willing to demand disclosure. In the case of the United States, you would expect the checks and balances among the three branches of government to be brought into play. The Congressional Oversight Committee, along with the UAP Task Force, is currently being stonewalled by various departments within the Executive Branch.

The information is fragmented into isolated “stovepipes,” meaning no one has access to the full picture and each group only works on the specific part they are given. It seems likely that the Congressional Oversight Committees are at odds with the Intelligence Committees, which typically operate with a higher level of classified clearance. Since that group is privy to more sensitive material, they may be more tightly bound to secrecy through NDAs and other legal mechanisms, and may function as an obstacle to disclosure rather than a partner in it.

This is a good and nuanced question.

I think that whether or not information regarding non-human intelligence should be classified in the first place is a good place to start. The United States Department of State's Foreign Affairs Manual lists 8 categories of information which are eligible for classification:

(of course, these are quite recent and would have been different in 1945, but I think it's a good benchmark)

(1) 1.4(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;
(2) 1.4(b) foreign government information (FGI) provided with the expectation of confidentiality;
(3) 1.4(c) intelligence activities, sources, or methods, or cryptology;
(4) 1.4(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;
(5) 1.4(e) scientific, technological or economic matters relating to national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism;
(6) 1.4(f) U.S. Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;
(7) 1.4(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects or plans, or protection services relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism; and
(8) 1.4(h) weapons of mass destruction. In this category, design elements only qualify for an exemption from automatic declassification at 25 years.


Of course, as for intelligent aliens and their auxiliary technologies—5, 6, 7, and 8 could definitely apply. U.S. law defines 'foreign person' as 'any individual or entity that is not a United States citizen, a permanent resident alien, or an entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States', so NHIs would be classified as 'foreign persons', legally. This also means, especially if as you suggested, at-least some of the NHIs are cooperative, 1, 2, 3, and 4 could apply.

So it's totally reasonable that intelligence regarding NHIs, be it biological, military, political, engineering, or astrophysical information, would stay under-wraps for a good while. I don't think the populace (and this extends to the rest of the world, too) has any intrinsic right to be made aware of information that may compromise not just national, but global security, just because of weighty perceived ontological implications.

That said, I don't know if the risk of 'Ontological Shock' would be a valid basis on which to withhold said intelligence until the powers that be decide it's ready for release.

Thinking about actual instances of massive classified (usually FOIA-spurred) doc-dumps, like those ceded to the public by the CIA in the past: in my experience, releasing a ton of information at once actually doesn't overload people in the way it seems it would. It usually kind-of numbs all but the keenest of scourers, who then write articles 'dissecting' and disseminating the info in digestible chunks. I bet the number of people who know what MK-ULTRA was far outweighs the number who have read the redacted documentation in its entirety. It seems to trickle down through channels:

Relevantly Credentialed Academics/Government Spokespeople —> General Academics/Science Communicators, people without specialised knowledge but with a higher capacity for digesting thick boilerplate and making sense out of it —> News Media who pick-up those people to pen articles as 'experts' —> The general population who read/watch that news

(This is an assumption I'm making. I feel it's fairly accurate/intuitive, though, and readily observable in modern legal cases and whatnot)

So, maybe an all-at-once dump isn't the worst idea, since existing frameworks that are inherent to a society where not everyone is educated the same kind of dull the edge of such massive information.

That said, aliens are different, and I respect that. Public reaction to the CIA experimenting on its own employees wasn't as bad as it should have been, but public reaction to the DoD hiding decades of NHI research, and just the definite existence of NHIs in-general, would be much more tumultuous, and, as you say, has genuine ontological implications.

I think a gradual declassification would just amp-up public disdain for governments, stir people to protest (enhanced Freedom of Information, National Security Standards, etc.), and encourage conspiracy-theories/diminished trust in science/anti-intellectualism. If people, especially people who don't necessarily understand the wider national-security/research considerations of it, can say:

"Our government has been hiding aliens from us!

It quickly becomes a hive for pseudo- and anti-intellectuals and breeds public distrust. Maybe a mass-dump under the guise of a:

"We want to bring you up-to-speed on an ongoing national-security situation we've been handling that is starting to be of public interest."

—would work better. Regardless, there is a major public shitstorm; people don't like being lied to and often take it quite personally when they are part of the electorate—whether they voted to instate the leader(s) that lied or not.

Back to the main question: I feel that the reason for the concealment being, on-record, the risk of an Ontological Shock in the case of public disclosure would come off as really patronising. According to PEW, 65% of Americans believe intelligent life [NHIs] exists on other planets, so perhaps the ontological impact actually wouldn't be as big as you'd expect. Obviously not all of these 65% would take it well—the actualisation of their opinion, which is likely based on the old statistical argument of:

"What are the chances we're the only intelligent life in the universe?"

—might shock them. For many people, it might even renew their optimism, though. Just a theory, but if, right now, the U.S. or UK government announced they had reverse-engineered an alien warp-drive or some sort of microwave-propulsion or Alcubierre Drive or something that'd revolutionise and greatly cheapen space travel over the coming decades, making all of our Star-Trek, Star Wars, and otherwise Sci-Fi dreams that much more feasible; allowing for interstellar exploration, taking off global-warming pressure, and generating a paradigm-shift in human technology—people might just be stoked.
Many would be upset, scared, or would go into crisis, but I don't think public reception would be wholly negative.

Nice thorough post, thanks.

So it's totally reasonable that intelligence regarding NHIs, be it biological, military, political, engineering, or astrophysical information, would stay under-wraps for a good while. I don't think the populace (and this extends to the rest of the world, too) has any intrinsic right to be made aware of information that may compromise not just national, but global security, just because of weighty perceived ontological implications. — Stuart Roberts

First off, it would have to be determined whether this information is actually harmful. I understand there are “unknown unknowns,” especially when it comes to how people might react, but that’s a consequence of living in a relatively open society. In this case, the ontological implications would outweigh the perceived security threats.

Imagine if the Catholic Church had been fully successful in suppressing Galileo and the Scientific Revolution because the truth was deemed too disruptive or inconvenient. Yet the movement continued and, arguably, changed the course of humanity for the better. Even if the technical details need to be withheld, there’s no justifiable reason not to acknowledge the existence of the crafts and beings-if they truly exist in any form.

And while your defense of classification for the sake of the greater good is a possibly valid concern, there are likely self-interested motives at play as well. Private companies could have a stake in keeping things quiet in order to be the first to develop and profit from any advanced technology.

Thinking about actual instances of massive classified (usually FOIA-spurred) doc-dumps, like those ceded to the public by the CIA in the past: in my experience, releasing a ton of information at once actually doesn't overload people in the way it seems it would. It usually kind-of numbs all but the keenest of scourers, who then write articles 'dissecting' and disseminating the info in digestible chunks. I bet the number of people who know what MK-ULTRA was far outweighs the number who have read the redacted documentation in its entirety. It seems to trickle down through channels:

Relevantly Credentialed Academics/Government Spokespeople —> General Academics/Science Communicators, people without specialised knowledge but with a higher capacity for digesting thick boilerplate and making sense out of it —> News Media who pick-up those people to pen articles as 'experts' —> The general population who read/watch that news

(This is an assumption I'm making. I feel it's fairly accurate/intuitive, though, and readily observable in modern legal cases and whatnot)

So, maybe an all-at-once dump isn't the worst idea, since existing frameworks that are inherent to a society where not everyone is educated the same kind of dull the edge of such massive information. — Stuart Roberts

I think disclosure should come directly from a major head of state. At the very least, it should be confirmed first by a top official in the intelligence or defense community, then publicly affirmed by the head of state. After that, there should be a structured rollout: major evidence, a timeline of events, and key developments- focusing not on sensitive technology, but on the broader facts.

"What are the chances we're the only intelligent life in the universe?"

—might shock them. For many people, it might even renew their optimism, though. Just a theory, but if, right now, the U.S. or UK government announced they had reverse-engineered an alien warp-drive or some sort of microwave-propulsion or Alcubierre Drive or something that'd revolutionise and greatly cheapen space travel over the coming decades, making all of our Star-Trek, Star Wars, and otherwise Sci-Fi dreams that much more feasible; allowing for interstellar exploration, taking off global-warming pressure, and generating a paradigm-shift in human technology—people might just be stoked.
Many would be upset, scared, or would go into crisis, but I don't think public reception would be wholly negative. — Stuart Roberts

I agree. I don't think people would panic just because it's confirmed that aliens have visited Earth. The public would want real answers to the big questions: Why are they here? Has there been any communication? If not, what caused the crashes- were they intentional, the result of technical failure, or brought down by military action? There should also be a clear explanation of what has been learned from the recovered craft and any biological evidence.

This notion of "ontological shock" seems a convenient excuse.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.