Are You Bored Waiting for the Scout Update?
TychoCelchuuu
Anememone Join Date: 2002-03-23 Member: 345Members
Anememone Join Date: 2002-03-23 Member: 345Members
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">I am too! Solution inside</div>I've begun to link any of my friends who message me saying they are bored to <a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/01/the-babyeating-aliens.html" target="_blank">this short story</a> which is pretty sweet. It occured to me that as long as my life purpose appears to have become the distribution of this story, I might as well post it here too.
I'd summarize it, but:
1. It's a short story so the summary would be extraneous.
2. It's much better if nothing's spoiled for you before you read it, IMHO.
3. Seriously you can read it pretty quickly. Certainly in the time it takes to join a TF2 server and realize that everyone is playing Scout trying to unlock the new crap and the game isn't fun anymore.
And now... DISCUSS!
Since this forum doesn't have spoiler tags, I've devised a clever method pioneered by someone else a while ago on these forums. So I didn't really devise it. Basically just put your spoiler in url tags and make the url something innocuous. I'll start.
<a href="http://My_favorite_part_of_the_story_was_when_it_turned_out_Darth_Vader_was_Luke's_father" target="_blank">CANDY'S DELICIOUS</a>
I'd summarize it, but:
1. It's a short story so the summary would be extraneous.
2. It's much better if nothing's spoiled for you before you read it, IMHO.
3. Seriously you can read it pretty quickly. Certainly in the time it takes to join a TF2 server and realize that everyone is playing Scout trying to unlock the new crap and the game isn't fun anymore.
And now... DISCUSS!
Since this forum doesn't have spoiler tags, I've devised a clever method pioneered by someone else a while ago on these forums. So I didn't really devise it. Basically just put your spoiler in url tags and make the url something innocuous. I'll start.
<a href="http://My_favorite_part_of_the_story_was_when_it_turned_out_Darth_Vader_was_Luke's_father" target="_blank">CANDY'S DELICIOUS</a>
Comments
Edit: Thanks lolfighter, now I won't be able to sleep until I go through the whole thing.
It has a number of good ideas, but some of the stuff the author randomly decides to toss in are kinda on the dumb side <span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>4chan, slashdot, etc</span>
As for the story,
Well.
time to play the black bar game!
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>Spider Robinson and Heinlein do it well though, these ones were just "Hey, I am gona toss in pop culture things!". I mean, Robinson's stuff (that I have read) is all set in the time he wrote it, so it fits. I never actually caught Heinlein tossing in a current meme, some times he assumes certain things will still be true regardless of time, but they aren't just memes, they are gestalt ideas. Meh, as I said, it is a minor thing that irks me, the rest is cool so far</span>
Ok, finished reading.
I like it.
It isn't the best written of things, and some of the ideas are relatively silly in my mind. But I really do like it. It covers a number of good ideas, and approaches them from different ways. I particularly liked the dual ending bit.
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>That doesn't have to be pain though. We are talking about a race that really have godlike powers (aka, beyond anything we can comprehend) when it comes to modifying creatures. If you want a creature to know somethign is bad for it you can either give it the innate knowledge and drive to avoid it, or you can change the pain system to simply giving you knowledge.
Simple example:
Touch a hot pan and your arm jerks away and you feel pain. The jerk is an automatic reaction well before we can process "oh, that hurts", and the pain is there to teach us not to do it again (a simplistic description but close enough). So, let us leave the jerk reaction, but remove the pain and replace it with the knowledge of "doing this harms (harm, not hurt) me, thus I don't want to do it". There done.
Really, this thing isn't much SF, more philosophical ideas put in the guise of an SF story, and because that is what it is, here is my comment on the philosophical ideas:
Everyone on bored save the captain are a bunch of hypocrites. To be willing to impose your morality on a society but unwilling to accept the morality of a morally superior race (they really all seem to think that the supperhappies ARE better then them, but they refuse to give up their individuality) is pure hypocrisy.
I also don't believe that the captain was correct in his ultimate choice for the same reason I don't think that any of the choices were correct. The concept of imposing my morality on an independent group is horrible in my mind. The concept of giving up who I am is also equally as horrible. The only reasonable choice I could see was to nova the star they were at, permanently cutting off all 3 races from the others.</span>
BLACK BARS!
The second ending is interesting too though. In that the crew decided to destroy an entire star system, some 15 billion people, rather than give up traits of humanity they couldn't even argue were good or necessary. And at the same time, they decided that killing those 15 billion people was better than allowing the Babyeater's to keep eating babies. The fact that this seems more acceptable, even to the reader, says something about human reasoning doesn't it?</span>
The second ending is interesting too though. In that the crew decided to destroy an entire star system, some 15 billion people, rather than give up traits of humanity they couldn't even argue were good or necessary. And at the same time, they decided that killing those 15 billion people was better than allowing the Babyeater's to keep eating babies. The fact that this seems more acceptable, even to the reader, says something about human reasoning doesn't it?</span><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>With you on the first bit. The first ending seems more believable and fitting with the characters we have been given.
However I explicitly don't think that the second idea is more acceptable, I think it is horrible. I am kinda curious, do other people think it is more acceptable?</span>
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>Those would be non sentient babies, it would be about the equivalent of eating a fertilized egg. Nasty? yes. Morally wrong? not really to me.
I think both endings are morally horrible, however I think the first is at least slightly better as it at least includes compromise and is not filled with hypocrisy like the 2nd. I proposed what I think it the proper solution, and that is to nova the first star, cutting all 3 races off from each other. None of them are perfect or right. From our current general morality:
The babyeaters torture sentient beings.
The supperhappies wish to impose their morality on everyone at the expense of those cultures' individuality. At least they impose changes on them selves to make it an equal exchange (admittedly I think that is BS, as you can not negotiate from a position of strength, only dictate conditions).
The humans legalized rape and desire to impose their morals on others.</span>
Updates laters.
The babyeaters torture sentient beings.
The supperhappies wish to impose their morality on everyone at the expense of those cultures' individuality.
</span><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>
The superhappies were only doing the same as we were doing. We thought the babyeater's babyeating was bad because the babies were sentient and were forced to suffer by their elders. To the superhapies, we were forcing our sentient children to endure unnecessary suffering.
Of course, to us, that suffering is an important part of life. And of course, to the babyeaters that suffering is an important part of life.
I think it is interesting to consider how the story would be different if the babyeaters had been the technologically superior race, and the superhappies the weakest, or if we had been the weakest or strongest. Consider how that would affect our interpretation of the situation, and our reaction, and what that says about the nature of our morality.
</span>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'> I proposed what I think it the proper solution, and that is to nova the first star, cutting all 3 races off from each other.</span><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>But what if the superhapies had never shown up? Would you still hold that position?
If so, then please explain your justification for allowing the mass torture of sentient beings. Would you have allowed the holocaust to continue if we could have some how split the earth in half and cut off Nazi Germany from the US and Britan?
If not, then please explain how your solution is better than the 2nd endings. The babyeater's babies would no longer suffer, but we would also not be altered by the superhappies.</span>
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>
Yes, you selectively quoted me there. The next line was that the humans also wish to do the same as the supperhappies, and they are also rapists. All things that are generally held to be negative things.
</span>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>But what if the superhapies had never shown up? Would you still hold that position?</span><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>Possibly. My PREFERRED solution would obviously be to some how deal with each other's differences, accept cultures for what they are, and not seek to impose our morality on them, or for their morality to be imposed on us. IF that was impossible and war could be avoided only by separating the 2 species, then yes, I would still vote for that.
</span>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>If so, then please explain your justification for allowing the mass torture of sentient beings. Would you have allowed the holocaust to continue if we could have some how split the earth in half and cut off Nazi Germany from the US and Britan?
If not, then please explain how your solution is better than the 2nd endings. The babyeater's babies would no longer suffer, but we would also not be altered by the superhappies.</span><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>
Nazis? Seriously, Nazis? That is fairly simple. Nazis persecuted and killed people because it was politically expedience, not because of some deep set morality that was part of the reason why their species could survive and flourish, and thus they should be stopped.
I honestly can't come up with a good comparison to the situation atm...
But yes. It is a defining aspect of their culture, and I do not believe it is anyone's right to say they are wrong.
If you were to decide that the universe must not tolerate them, then the only real option left is to exterminate them, as anything else is either the same or not enough. They are defined by this action, if you remove that action from them ,they are no longer who they are, and you have effectively wiped them out.
</span>
So, you can't wrap an entire post in spoiler tags if you have other tags (like quotes) in there....
</span><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>So you would let the torture continue. Is it your position that the torture is not wrong, if it is not deemed so by the society that commits it?</span>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>Nazis? Seriously, Nazis? That is fairly simple. Nazis persecuted and killed people because it was politically expedience, not because of some deep set morality that was part of the reason why their species could survive and flourish, and thus they should be stopped.</span><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>Though it was admittedly a less nuanced example, the situation is not as dissimilar as you think.</span>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>If you were to decide that the universe must not tolerate them, then the only real option left is to exterminate them, as anything else is either the same or not enough. They are defined by this action, if you remove that action from them ,they are no longer who they are, and you have effectively wiped them out.
</span><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>By that logic, the human race has been wiped out many times over. It is the nature of the universe that things change and evolve. Do you believe yourself to be defined by the things you do? And do you believe yourself destroyed when you stop doing some things and begin doing others? Do you believe that mankind was destroyed when we stopped worshiping god-kings and started electing leaders? When we stopped being nomadic and became civilized?</span>
By that logic, the human race has been wiped out many times over. It is the nature of the universe that things change and evolve. Do you believe yourself to be defined by the things you do? And do you believe yourself destroyed when you stop doing some things and begin doing others? Do you believe that mankind was destroyed when we stopped worshiping god-kings and started electing leaders? When we stopped being nomadic and became civilized?</span><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>
Those are natural progression performed from within the society. But even there the difference between ANY example you could give and the babyeaters is insufficient. The babyeaters are hypothetical construct and can only really be answered with hypothetical answers. This is an ENTIRE civilization that defines it self around a single act, and you are suggesting to remove that act. In doing so you are deconstructing their civilization. You have removed who they are, thus changing them into something they are not. I stand by my statement that it would be equivalent to genocide.
IT is kind of like The Matrix (Well, Dark City, but I haven't seen Dark City in a while). Humans that are grown in The Matrix don't know that there is anything different. They don't know there is something wrong. They are not harmed emotionally or physically. But yet we still deem this to be wrong. Why?
Now, if you disagree with this, then that is a basic difference in philosophy that we have.</span>
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>I'm going to side with SkulkBait; babyeating is what their society revolves around, but it's still a product of society - removal would be a huge change, rather bigger than elected leaders instead of born leaders, but would still be simply an evolution of their society.
Still brings up the question of "What are WE doing that is probably just as wrong?", regardless of the superhappies</span>
Nazis? Seriously, Nazis? That is fairly simple. Nazis persecuted and killed people because it was politically expedience, not because of some deep set morality that was part of the reason why their species could survive and flourish, and thus they should be stopped.
I honestly can't come up with a good comparison to the situation atm....
</span><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>
Nazi's are in the story itself, so I'd say this comparison avoids the Godwin. Also I'd say the comparison is very apt. The Baby-Eater culture is a culture that literally thrives on genocide, exterminating "unreasonable" viewpoints. It's fascism enforced by a society, the "logical end" of that philosophy. You could say the SupperHappies are also cultural fascists, but extend that fascism to other cultures AND themselves, instead of imposing it one way they want everyone to be the "same" even when that includes changing themselves.
</span>
I'm going to take this out of the spoiler tags because it's so abstract anyway.
I'm sure there's an actual term for "cultural fascism", but it escapes me at the moment. It's not communism because that's just "from each to the best of his ability". Any form of government can lead to this oppression.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>This is an ENTIRE civilization that defines it self around a single act, and you are suggesting to remove that act. In doing so you are deconstructing their civilization. You have removed who they are, thus changing them into something they are not. I stand by my statement that it would be equivalent to genocide.</span><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>Then genocide (in this form) may be necessary. The human race has virtually eliminated small pox because it is a horrible disease with ridiculously high death rate. If small pox had been sentient, do you think we should have let it survive? ...admittedly not a great example, but do you see my point, that just because they are sentient that is no excuse for allowing them to torture? If torture is inherently, universally wrong, then it is our duty to eliminate it. Yes, this is recognizably dangerous thinking, but thats what the humans in the story are faced with.</span>
I mean, yes, I can see not wanting to part with something you're so used to, but not to the point of commiting suicide or killing your kids (childicide?).
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>Then genocide (in this form) may be necessary. The human race has virtually eliminated small pox because it is a horrible disease with ridiculously high death rate. If small pox had been sentient, do you think we should have let it survive? ...admittedly not a great example, but do you see my point, that just because they are sentient that is no excuse for allowing them to torture? If torture is inherently, universally wrong, then it is our duty to eliminate it. Yes, this is recognizably dangerous thinking, but thats what the humans in the story are faced with.</span><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
no more spoiler tags for me.
Honestly, genocide is a more acceptable option then the supperhappy method as I find it less hypocritical. If you belive that something can only be 'fixed' by completely redesigning it, then you should destroy it and start again, as that really is what you are doing.
<!--quoteo(post=1701937:date=Mar 4 2009, 02:18 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Align @ Mar 4 2009, 02:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1701937"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why is the Superhappies solution so horrible anyway? Sounds like an upgrade.
I mean, yes, I can see not wanting to part with something you're so used to, but not to the point of commiting suicide or killing your kids (childicide?).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the suicide thing is silly in my mind, but the supperhappy solution is still very distasteful in my mind. If you were to do all those things to me, I would no longer be who I am. It is true that I would personally sit back and let it happen to me (if I had no way of stopping it short of suicide), but that is for other reasons.
For me I guess it comes down to the fact that the supperhappy method removes individuality, somethign that I believe to be very important.
Part of the Compromise was that they would be required to eat their children. Their children would be modified to be non-sentient at the time of being eaten, but still are you telling me you can't imagine people choosing suicide over a future of child eating?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Honestly, genocide is a more acceptable option then the supperhappy method as I find it less hypocritical.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is it really? We have a problem with the babyeaters because they are torturing and killing their young, but if we genocide their race how are we any better than them? The superhappies at least are willing to acknowledge that the babyeater morality, though different and repulsive in their sight, may have some merit, as might the similarly disgusting human ways. That is why they chose the Compromise. They didn't have to. They could easily have forced the other races to take on their moral worldview, but they didn't. Granted, they did force the compromise on the babyeaters, since they could not allow the suffering to continue.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you were to do all those things to me, I would no longer be who I am.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are not who you were 10 years ago. Why is this change so different?
I have a real problem accepting your view that changing something destroys it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For me I guess it comes down to the fact that the supperhappy method removes individuality, somethign that I believe to be very important.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where are you getting that? The superhappies recognized individuals as far as I could tell. The fact that their translator program showed different images of different superhappies is evidence of that.
I assumed that part was cut when the Babyeaters rejected their proposition.
EDIT: If they hadn't, I would say that eating fake babies might well be worth the price of real babies not being eaten. Doubt I could stomach it, literally, (unless those modifications allowed for that as well) but it would certainly be logical.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Many parents had made that choice for their children. The government had tried to stop it. The Superhappies weren't going to like it, when they found out. And it wasn't right, when the children themselves wouldn't be so afraid of a world without pain. It wasn't as if the parents and children were going somewhere together. The government had done its best, issued orders, threatened confiscations - but there was only so much you could do to coerce someone who was going to die anyway.
So more often than not, they carried away the mother's body with her daughter's, the father with the son.
The survivors, Akon knew, would regret that far more vehemently, once they were closer to the Superhappy point of view.
Just as they would regret not eating the tiny bodies of the infants.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no such thing as a forced compromise. They have imposed their will on them through force.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are not who you were 10 years ago. Why is this change so different?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you don't get the difference between a forced change from a 3rd party and a natural evolution then I am not sure what to say. I mean, is maturing as a person the same as some one forcing you to think a different way? Are gradual changes in nature over generations the same as an entity instantly modifying who you are on a fundamental level?
Ever read/watch A Clockwork Orange?
The protagonist is a horrible person, yet what happens to him is still generally accepted as wrong, however if we were to lock him up for life (or possibly kill him depending on your view on the death penalty) we would have no problems with it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have a real problem accepting your view that changing something destroys it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Changing something does not necessarily destroy it, however the nature of the change is such that the species are no longer what they were on a fundamental level after the changes. One of the interesting thigns is that the only species that would not be destroyed woudl be the supperhappies as this type of change seems to BE part of their fundamental makeup.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Where are you getting that? The superhappies recognized individuals as far as I could tell. The fact that their translator program showed different images of different superhappies is evidence of that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, I was talking about individuality on the species level, somethign that the superhappies very specifically don't seem to appreciate (demonstrated by their desire to change).
<!--quoteo(post=1701946:date=Mar 4 2009, 03:11 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Align @ Mar 4 2009, 03:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1701946"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I assumed that part was cut when the Babyeaters rejected their proposition.
EDIT: If they hadn't, I would say that eating fake babies might well be worth the price of real babies not being eaten. Doubt I could stomach it, literally, (unless those modifications allowed for that as well) but it would certainly be logical.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think they ever even proposed to compromise to the babyeaters, I think their intention was to impose it from the get go.
also, I don't think stomaching would be an issue as it would be a basic part of your nature. You would need (and I assume want) to eat babies.