Word to describe an entity that is malevolent, but not necessarily aware

Question

Not sure if this is the best place to ask, so let me know :)

I'm working on a story idea that features a parasite similar to Halo's Flood, and the Necromorphs from the Dead Space games. Although the parasite has the 'goal' of absorbing all life in the galaxy, it is not necessarily 'aware'. It is meant to be a sort of Lovecraftian deal, with it being no more aware of Humanity than a Human is of bacteria, at least before we invented the microscope.

Given that the Parasite is deliberately malevolent, what is the best word to describe it? I'm looking for a word that encapsulates the same kind of danger as a storm or other natural phenomena, in the sense that a storm doesn't 'care' if it kills you, but without implying randomness or lack of agency. I also don't mind the word not being English, as the concept may be better expressed by another language that doesn't directly translate.

If you are familiar with the Babylon 5 TV series it would be a word that describes the encounter with the First Ones above Sigma 957. The ancient being in question almost killed someone by shorting out the power systems of their spacecraft directly from proximity, and it is explicit in the episode that they are probably not even aware of it.

If anyone has any suggestions as to a word to use, I would much appreciate it.

Answer 1

I agree with Digital Dracula's comments (which would probably make a fine answer) that if something is unaware, it's unlikely to be malevolent. For malevolence I would expect intent, and a sense of significance of the victim in the perpetrator's mind.

From the examples you've given, I would probably go with a word like impassive, emotionless, or indifferent. If I wanted more sympathy with the victim I'd use callous, careless or cold. For more of the victim's perspective you could try heartless, soulless, or uncaring - though there's an element of projection there : it's possible that the idea of caring about the individuals affected never occurred to the perpetrator (DD's ant analogy is a good one). The entity can have goals of its own, but it might not have considered the goals of the people affected by its actions any more than we would wonder about the ambitions of the steak on our plate.

From a couple of Adamses (Douglas and Richard) :

It was impersonal, not as a randomly flung fist in a crowd is impersonal, but like a computer-issued parking summons is impersonal. And it was deadly — again, not like a bullet or a knife is deadly, but like a brick wall across a motorway is deadly. (Douglas Adams : Life, the Universe, and Everything)

and

Blackberry: Men have always hated us.

Holly: No. They just destroyed the warren because we were in their way.

(Richard Adams : Watership Down)

Answer 2

malevolent, from the Latin male "ill" and volens "wishing" – literally "wishing ill" –, describes behavior "arising from intense often vicious ill will, spite, or hatred".

In philosophy and psychology, the will is commonly distinguished from drives, desires, needs, affect, motivation, and other often unconscious impulses and involves a conscious rational decision. You have to be aware of what you want to "make up your mind" and decide on what you will do.

So, as I see it, you have basically two options:

1. Your entity is malevolent. This implies that it possesses consciousness and is aware. In that case the term you are looking for might be

   evil

2. Your entity is unaware. This implies that its actions aren't malevolent and damage to third parties is nothing but an accident. In that case the term you are looking for might be

   animal

   or

   force of nature

   depending on whether it is alive or not.

Answer 3

Is it malevolent in general, but just unaware of humans? In that case, perhaps simply 'beyond us' is the best word from a human perspective. From there, the main aspect we can even comprehend is that it's indifferent to our fate, regardless of what overarching malevolence it might have.