Steven M. Greer, MD

When we speak of interacting with ETI (Extraterrestrial Intelligence) , we are, after all, talking about reaching out to advanced conscious intelligent beings, and not the mere observation of some natural phenomenon or biological process.  For this reason, careful consideration must be given to not only our view of ETI’s intentions, but more importantly, to our own intentions and attitudes.  The human tendency – well evidenced by both military and civilian reactions to ETS (Extraterrestrial Spacecraft) – for xenophobic, violent and even paranoid reactions to the new and unknown must be addressed and rectified.  The human predisposition to view anything which we do not understand or control as intrinsically hostile and threatening must be overcome.  The blind quest for personal gain, profiteering and an inclination towards viewing ETS/ETI in predominantly ‘acquisition’ framework needs to be altered.  If we are motivated by a desire to ‘out-smart’ ETI and acquire their technology and energy source, then our efforts will fail.  If we approach ETI with greed, fear, assumed hostility and suspicion, then we shall expend our efforts in vain.

There is no doubt that we are dealing with beings who are capable of reading, by both telepathic and conventional means, our true intentions and motivations, and who can sense the “spirit of our endeavor”.  Success requires that the spirit of our endeavor be one of scientific openness, the search for truth, altruism, selflessness, harmlessness and non-covetousness.  A desire for the peaceful furtherance of the ETI- Human relationship is paramount.  For these reason, “purity of motive” on the part of human researchers and investigators is a primary requisite while specific skills, expertise and technology are important but secondary considerations.  The breadth and clarity of our consciousness is imperative and transcends all other considerations.  Our obsession with technology and outward things tends to obscure the Big Picture of the ETI/Human relationship, and all that it entails.  While competence and knowledge cannot be slighted, we must insist on the primary importance of consciousness.  In this regard, it is likely that a novice possessed of noble intentions and equipped with only a flashlight would meet (has met?) with greater success than a governmental agency motivated by lesser intentions, even though it has advanced technology, personnel and billions of dollars at its disposal.  Indeed, an aboriginal with only a bonfire may go further in the establishment of communication and the discovery of truth!

Of almost equal importance is the question of how we view ETI intentions and motives.  If the tabloids, sensationalist books and rumor mills are to be believed, ETI are all either guru-like space gods or Darth Vader space conquerors!  Our tendency to polarize on either side of this issue is both premature and unwarranted – and it is dangerous. It is unlikely that they are either perfect gods or evil empire operatives, yet these views of their motives have influenced and will continue to influence our attitudes and actions unless consciously addressed.  A review of the cases to date would indicate that while some actions are enigmatic and even disturbing to some human sensibilities, no evidence of net hostile intentions exists. Here, we must differentiate between our perceptions of actions and actual intentions or motives, since these are two separate considerations.  (For a more thorough treatment of this topic see “The Case of Non-Hostility).  A seemingly disturbing action may occur for a net neutral or even benevolent purpose.  Certainly as an Emergency and Trauma doctor, not a day goes by where a child or impaired adult victim of trauma could view my efforts to help him as painful and therefore motivated by a desire to do harm, even though my motives are just the opposite.  That a frightened child perceives my actions as hurtful or malevolent is a function of the child’s level of awareness and knowledge, and in no way reflects my true intentions.  Could not an analogous process be occurring with some ETI events which conventional wisdom has deemed hostile and therefore as evidence of malevolent intentions?

Certainly for CE-5 Initiative research it is important to give ETI the benefit of the doubt, and until proven otherwise, assume non-hostility.  An assumption of ETI hostility will poison the atmosphere of future bi-lateral contact and prevent the development of an ETI-Human relationship free of conflict. This is one time in human history where fortitude, trust and self-discipline are essential prerequisites to further progress.  The assumption of non-hostility does not equal either blind naivete or an assumption that ETI are perfect god-like saviors. But it does mean holding an open, non-suspicious and positive attitude towards ET beings.  To do otherwise is to create a reality based in conflict and hostility, a thorny path already well traveled by the human race.

Beyond the consciousness of actual researchers or those who have had close encounters is the importance of the background consciousness of humanity as a whole.  The type and quality of any further ETI-Human interactions – and therefore the specific results of any CE-5 Initiative efforts – will be in part dependent on and limited by the level of evolution in human society.  We should not be surprised if an ET civilization prefers to limit the degree of open contact with humans given the present preoccupation with militarism, conflict and violence.  As human society makes the necessary transition to world peace and cooperation, I believe we will see a concomitant increase in ETI openness and bilateral communication.  In this sense, the success of the CE-5 Initiative is directly dependent on the peace and unification of the human race.  World peace and world unity and cooperation then are the important determinants of future ETI-Human events.  The depth and quality of the CE-5 Initiative may prove to be modest, but these will increase as human society evolves towards peace and unity.

From: “Extraterrestrial Contact: The Evidence and Implications” by Steven M. Greer, MD
p. 178 – 180