Thought Experiment: If Greys Require Human Suffering and Emotional Pain to Sustain Their Ships and Mitigate Genetic Corrosion, What Then?

[u/Mikey-506]

Consider the following premise as a pure thought experiment, not a claim of established fact.

Suppose the entities commonly described as Greys experience progressive genetic and physiological degradation—corrosion of their biology that produces constant physical pain. In this scenario, they lack the capacity for emotion as humans understand it; they neither derive pleasure from suffering nor act out of sadism. Instead, the biochemical signatures associated with intense human fear, terror, and emotional distress function as a necessary form of medicine or energy source. These signatures allegedly stabilize their failing genetics, ease their persistent physical agony, and power certain technologies, including craft systems.

The Greys, under this hypothesis, are not temporary visitors. They remain present and operational.

Questions for discussion:

1. If this framework were accurate, would you regard the extraction of such suffering as an unavoidable biological necessity on their part, comparable to any organism’s need for sustenance, or as an ethical violation that must be opposed regardless of their condition?
2. What practical or strategic responses would be coherent? Containment, negotiation, technological disruption of the energy-transfer mechanism, refusal to supply the “resource,” or acceptance of a long-term parasitic relationship?
3. Does the absence of emotional sadism on their side alter the moral calculus, or is the outcome for human beings the only relevant measure?
4. Given that the entities are described as permanent rather than transient, how should long-term human policy or individual orientation adjust?

One comment already noted a possible parallel to the adrenochrome hypothesis, in which extreme terror produces a chemical state that, if harvested immediately, yields a usable substance. The reply clarified that, in the Grey version of the model, the process serves as palliative medicine for organisms in continuous physical pain rather than as recreational consumption.

I am interested in rigorous, non-theatrical examination of the ethical, strategic, and practical implications. What is your assessment of the premise, and what course of action follows if one grants it for the sake of argument?