First contact - science or magic

[Umbran]

I'm afraid I must agree with Spider that most people would assume they were demons- given the recent fervor with "end times" thinking.

Where do you get the idea that the majority of folks think this way?

 

[Arnwyn]

How would the general media (news organizations) identify these creatures? The media, as well as the general populace, must call these creatures something. Would these creatures be called "aliens" or "demons", or something else? Natural or supernatural? Terrestrial or extraterristrial?

It depends which country (or region within that country) is doing the reporting (and which 'news organization').

And that's all I'm going to say about that.

 

[paradox42]

Where do you get the idea that the majority of folks think this way?

Close contact (even friendship) with people living in areas outside major American cities, specifically some who grew up in tiny towns, as well as life in cities in the "Bible Belt" (with similarly-formed acquaintances there). I lived in Memphis, TN for three years in the 90s, and went back there on and off for several subsequent years since my parents and sister were still there (later they moved to Dallas, TX for a couple of years, but are now living in rural Michigan).

It is true that a lot of people these days are inclined to listen to scientific explanations, particularly if they actually take the time to look at evidence and listen to arguments based on said evidence; however, at least half of the people I've known when living in the above-mentioned places (or who grew up in such places) were disinclined to put forth the effort to listen to and consider such evidence and arguments. For them, science and religion carry equal weight before analysis, and religion is often more emotionally comforting than science. Ergo, what their reverends/preachers/priests had told them was good enough for them, and they didn't bother looking for any other explanations. I'd be genuinely shocked if people living in the Middle East (where the monotheistic religions are strongest, and often at least partly written into local laws) didn't tend to behave the same way. People living outside large cities in general, in the world, tend to be less educated and more prone to religious fervor- and that is still a majority of the current world population despite the rise of huge cities in the last couple of centuries.

My reasoning on the subject goes like this: the mystery entities show up, and governments around the world at first deny their existence, trying to keep a lid on potential panic hoping the Things just go away. Meanwhile, the rumors make it 'round the Internet and various other word-of-mouth channels anyway, evidence building and building until no amount of official denials can be credible. The governments then trot out scientists and other "experts" to give a scientific explanation and try to reassure the public, again to keep the potential for panic down, but by that time the creatures would already be named- the initial phase of rumor expansion is when the creatures would acquire the colloquial title and associations that are the subject of this thread. During that initial phase, people without explanations would naturally fall back on whatever occurred to them first, and anybody offering an explanation would gain a large audience. Essentially, my feeling is the preachers would give an explanation first, in an effort to whip up the congregations, and their explanation would stick for quite some time in people who are inclined to religious thinking (or aren't inclined one way or the other towards religion or science). And since the mystery entities didn't arrive via any visibly technological means (meaning ships- portals could be considered either technological or supernatural depending on the perspective of the viewer), the scientific establishment would be very hard pressed to dislodge the idea that they're demons or spirits once it becomes common among the populace.

I suppose, my reasoning boils down ultimately to cynicism. So be it- I'm a cynic. People have rarely proved me wrong that way.

 

[WmRAllen67]

...they would be regarded as aliens and regarded as extraterrestrial in nature. Depending upong their actions, I suppose some would attach mystical significance to them, as even now we have people who's beliefs bridge the two...

Probably-- the "alien" has taken the place in our folk culture that "faeries" or "evil spirits" held a few hundred years ago...

 

[Staffan]

Probably-- the "alien" has taken the place in our folk culture that "faeries" or "evil spirits" held a few hundred years ago...

The Technomancer setting for GURPS (basically modern day, where magic has worked since the end of WW2 and been the subject of lots of research) even had legends of "seelie abductions" instead of alien abductions.

 

[Bryon_Soulweaver]

I'd offer our new friends a beer and say "Hey, there's a party going down at [street] and [street], wanna come?"

 

[jester47]

Most religious folks that I have run accross don't REALLY believe in demons, so aliens would be the result.

Personally I think the populous would be divided on what they were. You would have four populations:

Those that thought they were aliens and fought against them
Those that thought they were aliens and sided with them in hopes of getting better tech
Those that thought they were demons and fought against them
Those that thought they were demons and sided with them in hopes of getting better tech

My point of view, knowing how difficult space travel would be, and how old and advanced the race would have to be to reach us, and that the chances of us encountering such anytime soon is pretty much nil, I would vote demons.

At least dimensional travellers. Indeed what is a demon but a dimensional alien?

 

[Umbran]

Close contact (even friendship) with people living in areas outside major American cities, specifically some who grew up in tiny towns, as well as life in cities in the "Bible Belt" (with similarly-formed acquaintances there).

Ah. Well, the US Census Bureau says that in 1990, about 75% of the nation's population was urban in 1990. While that's a ways back, it gives us a decent baseline to consider. While there are some urbs in the Bible Belt, they aren't the bigger ones we've got. Do you really think that you can scrape up over half the population from there?

I don't doubt that many would think as you describe. But most is a pretty tall order.

 

[paradox42]

Ah. Well, the US Census Bureau says that in 1990, about 75% of the nation's population was urban in 1990. While that's a ways back, it gives us a decent baseline to consider. While there are some urbs in the Bible Belt, they aren't the bigger ones we've got. Do you really think that you can scrape up over half the population from there?

I don't doubt that many would think as you describe. But most is a pretty tall order.

Perhaps not in the United States. But the United States doesn't contain anywhere near a majority of the world population- in fact, IIRC it isn't even in the top 5 nations by population. Consider rural India, for example- India has 1 billion at last count, doesn't it, or close to that? While there are a lot of educated, urban-dwelling Indians, I doubt their education statistics match those of the US, given how much higher education tends to cost. I believe it has been established statistically that developing, less-educated regions tend to have higher population density than more-developed, more-educated regions like the US and Europe, because as education rates climb, issues such as women's reproductive rights and birth control tend to drive birth rates down. Admittedly I didn't actually go check for real statistics on this, it's just off the top of my head- so take it as you will.

And my opinion stands as-is, anyway- religious thinking (in opposition to scientific thinking) is on an upswing in the US right now, so I'm confident in my cynicism. Then again, as a primary target of religious-idiot bashing (they hate gays with a very public passion these days) my perspective is naturally colored to expect trouble from them.

 

[jester47]

And my opinion stands as-is, anyway- religious thinking (in opposition to scientific thinking) is on an upswing in the US right now, so I'm confident in my cynicism. Then again, as a primary target of religious-idiot bashing (they hate gays with a very public passion these days) my perspective is naturally colored to expect trouble from them.

I like to bash religious idiots too.

All humor about obtuse interpretations of you last sentence aside, I want you to know that there are many religious thinking people out here that do not hate you.