Similarly, skeptics have suggested that UFOs and abductions do not exist because the aliens are not acting according to a model that the society has decreed they apparently should. If they were acting in the proper manner, the arguments go, they would have already either shown themselves in a formal display, helped humankind overcome its problems, or taken over the world long ago. At the very least, they would not go around covertly flying hither and yon with no discernible reason -- and they certainly would not be engaged in this behavior for over fifty years.
The critics use the same style of argument against the abduction phenomenon. If they were here, they would not be abducting people over and over again to get eggs and sperm. If they were here, they would not have to use women to gestate fetuses, they would gestate them in vitro without having to use humans. If they were here, they would not abduct average people, they would abduct "important" people.
I can say with absolute assurance that these arguments are based on a total absence of knowledge of extraterrestrial life and motivations. Since by definition the critics are not persuaded that UFOs are extraterrestrial these critics can therefore possess no knowledge of aliens. Thus, their arguments are anthropomorphized theories based on culturally determined notions of how aliens should act. A mixture of science fiction, "common sense," and ignorance has produced suppositions that have, over the years, calcified into a sort of dogma that has become a litmus test of "reality."
But as John Mack says, the phenomenon is what it is. All we can do is investigate and chronicle what is happening, sort what the abductees are describing, and try to make sense of it. Our culturally determined expectations of how aliens should or should not act are of little consequence in the absence of knowledge about their motivations or technological limitations. Investigators must analyze what is happening, not what should be happening.