Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS)

[Retlaw May]

I'm starting to skim the long ones.

[Randomizer]

I think one of the arguements is that anything that can be destroyed and reproduced with no loss of information has less value than things like humans that can't be replaced exactly. Animals fall in between since they now can be cloned but do not carry their memories. Machines will always have the lowest value because they can be duplicated.

 

I would argue that within any of these classes that there will be a wide range of value and overlap between the categories. A human whose brain is completely vegative has much lower value than a functional human and should be lower than the other classes since it can provide no value except as a source of replacement parts for other humans.

[Lilith]

Quote:

Human is NOT, nor never should be, a replaceable commodity. I personally feel all natural life is inherently superior to any imitation that could be produced by man aided by technology or magic.

Personal feelings are not a sound basis for an ethical system.

Quote:

That's not to say that for specific purposes, imitations couldn't be built to perform tasks that are hazardous to the natural beings that created them. However, those artificial beings inherently can't be equal in value to the beings that created them because they are a replaceable, inherently disposable imitation of the natural world.

What do you mean by "natural" and "artificial"? It seems impossible to draw any objective distinction between the two. If humans are natural creatures, doesn't that mean anything produced by humans must also be natural?

[Student of Trinity]

Quote:

Originally written by Randomizer:
I think one of the arguements is that anything that can be destroyed and reproduced with no loss of information has less value than things like humans that can't be replaced exactly.

This might be a pretty good criterion, but it applies to very little, since practically no objects can be reproduced exactly, down to the atomic scale. Cloning is way far from that, because genetic code is only a relatively high-level design specification. So you're left trying to decide how close a reproduction is necessary, and suddenly you're hip deep in philosophy.

[Hamilton G. Phantamos]

Quote:

Personal feelings are not a sound basis for an ethical system.

Ethical systems are based on avoiding doing unneccesary harm and performing those actions that leave us with a sense of guilt -- the feeling that we personally have done something wrong or immoral. Personal feelings are intertwined and bound to ethical systems. Otherwise no one would ever have the empathy to think about how their actions affect others and relate those emotions to themselves in the same situation. You can have an ethical system but if you don't have any personal feelings invested in it and you just don't care, what obligates you to live by that system rather than another one?

Quote:

What do you mean by "natural" and "artificial"? It seems impossible to draw any objective distinction between the two. If humans are natural creatures, doesn't that mean anything produced by humans must also be natural?

If drakons and golems aren't naturally occuring fauna in the Geneforge universe produced by evolution and natural selection, I think that's a pretty big tip off. We build assembly lines, plastics, and coal generators with smoke stacks to exhaust tremendous amounts of combustion byproducts into the atmosphere. I don't think anyone would consider them natural, for

a) being the products of human ingenuity and engineering

b)imbalancing nature in damaging ways by producing pollution.

Quote:

This might be a pretty good criterion, but it applies to very little, since practically no objects can be reproduced exactly, down to the atomic scale. Cloning is way far from that, because genetic code is only a relatively high-level design specification. So you're left trying to decide how close a reproduction is necessary, and suddenly you're hip deep in philosophy.

It isn't neccesary to reproduce or replace something "down to the atom." It's more along the lines of crush an android's arm in a press, you can detach the remaining limb and replace it with another arm made for that model. Lop off a man's arm with an axe, and it's near impossible to repair the nerve and bone damage and it's better to simply leave it amputated. This also applies to animals, since even if you could synthesize the DNA in a lab, getting it to actually develop into a viable lifeform would be a tedious trial and error process with no guarantee of success. Breeding them naturally with living specimens will always be more fool proof and actually better since it wouldn't produce copies of the same genetic code. If one synthesized animal is susceptible to some disease than all the other specimens of that species would be wiped out as well.

You could shape a battle alpha or drayk and reabsorb it indefinitely, there'd be subtle variations each time depending on fluctuating fatigue and concentration, but they wouldn't have any intelligence and personality beyond what you will into them as you're shaping them.

[Lilith]

I've been trying very hard to avoid resorting to ad hominem arguments in this discussion, but it's difficult; the more I hear of your arguments, the less I like you. You appear to believe that anything produced by a human is necessarily inferior in some way to anything which is not produced by a human. It seems to me that this is a very narrow-minded and rather misanthropic attitude. If, as you say, human life has value because of the human capacity for originality, then to deny that we could create something as great as ourselves is to deny our own humanity.

[Hamilton G. Phantamos]

If you don't like me because I don't sympathize with machines and artificial life forms, I think that's a pretty pathetic reason to write somebody off. Maybe you've been brainwashed by movies like I, Robot or for some reason think humans have a right to try to outdo nature, but my point is technological advancement without regard to the consequences is dangerous.

 

Denying that we could create something "as great as ourselves" doesn't deny our humanity, it accepts it and recognizes the inherent flaws in our personalities and pyches that would inevitably influence and inspire our work.

 

Progress in that work without humility and the acceptance that whatever we create isn't capable of comparison with the wonders of the universe is dangerous. Have you ever seen the clear night sky in an area far removed from civilization? Our lives are an imperceptible flicker in time on a remote world orbiting an average star near the outer fringes of our galaxy, seperated from the nearest galaxy by an infathomable stretch of cold emptiness.

 

Maybe you missed the point of stories like Frankenstein, or The Matrix, Terminator, or Blade Runner, but the lesson is that to create out of hubris -- to believe that humans can create something greater than themselves or reshape creation to their whim -- is a dangerous and ultimately tragic line of reasoning.

 

The question isn't if humans could create something better than themselves; it's if it would a wise or safe choice to attempt to do so. The end result would be a creation that dwarfs the ability of its maker and would lack any real obligation to remain under their control. If the Shapers had thought about this before recklessly creating drakons, they wouldn't be facing their own impending doom.

 

In reality, it isn't the drakons that willlead to the Shapers destruction. It's their foolishness and short-sightedness in attempting to make something better than themselves.

 

And don't worry about hurting my feelings over the internet. I didn't come specifically to be well liked, or make internet friends with strangers hundreds of miles away. I came to discuss the moral and plot of Geneforge and share my views and opinions on the story, and exchange ideas on what other people thought. How you personally feel about me and my ideas outside of an intelligent philosophical debate ins't going to cost me any sleep at night.

[Micawber]

Quote:

written by Savage Ed Walcott:
It is self-evident why human life is more important than the life of a machine, no matter how sentient. Machines can be rebuilt and replaced [...] You can't just replace a child with one with exactly the same hopes, ideas, and memories. A summoned dragon can be given whatever thoughts and ideas its creator wants it to have, creating and reabsorbing it over and over again indefinitely. If you kill a child, how will you replace THAT child? You could conceive and raise another infant, but its life experiences and memories would make it inherently distinct from the original, even if it was a spitting image.

I disagree. I think by sentient machine you mean something which is self-aware, yes? Then this machine has experiences, hopes, ideas and memories of its very own. The same goes for serviles and drakons. If you kill a sentient machine/servile/drakon, how will you replace THAT machine/servile/drakon? You could conceive and raise another machine/servile/drakon, but its life experiences and memories would make it inherently distinct from the original, even if it was a spitting image.

Quote:

written by MagmaDragoon:
I'm starting to think that the problem cannot be solved [...] Sure, we can make all serviles free, but the dumb ones will never be happy.

Spot on, Magma, I completely agree. And this situation was inevitable as soon as a slave race was created.

• View point one (Shaper). It is morally fine for Us to 'play god' with life, i.e. create it, change it, destroy it, etc. Then there's nothing to stop Us from creating Our very own slave race to perform menial tasks on Our behalf. Since We are so wise and gracious, We will ensure that the slaves are dumb, and have no desire other than to serve Us. If they rebel or show any independent thought, then they do not serve Our design and should be destroyed immediately.
• View point two (Outsider). So the shapers came along and learned to create life. Good for them. Creating useful lifeforms such as ornks and clawbugs is really impressive. Some of the creations, like the Vlish, are truly a work of art. Humanity has never before ascended so high. But there must be limits. When the shapers announced they were breeding a race of humanoid servants, we all felt uneasy, but we accepted the situation, provided they treated the serviles decently, took good care of them, etc. Basically the serviles are like children -- they can't fend for themselves, so you do need take control of their likes, but you also have a responsibility never to treat them cruelly. If and when a servile develops its own intelligence it ceases to be that child, it has grown up and you've got to stop bossing it around. The policy of annihilating any servile that questions orders is totally unacceptable, it's sheer murder. Creating life does not give you the right to end it.

Obviously, there are other viewpoints. Oh yeah, and this is a role-playing game. Just thought I'd mention that.
Edit: OK, so while I was writing, Savage Ed wrote another reply. He says that creating the drayks etc was a mistake, which might sound a bit like what I just wrote. It isn't. His belief -- expressed in rather religious terms -- is that humans should not try to create intelligent life. Because it's presumptuous, or something like that. If you like, call this viewpoint three.

[John S]

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:
Maybe you missed the point of stories like Frankenstein, or The Matrix, Terminator, or Blade Runner, but the lesson is that to create out of hubris -- to believe that humans can create something greater than themselves or reshape creation to their whim -- is a dangerous and ultimately tragic line of reasoning.

Ah, but it's okay to declare yourselves above these creatures? It's okay to decide which of them die and which of them live? To play god in another way?

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:
If you don't like me because I don't sympathize with machines and artificial life forms, I think that's a pretty pathetic reason to write somebody off. Maybe you've been brainwashed by movies like I, Robot or for some reason think humans have a right to try to outdo nature, but my point is technological advancement without regard to the consequences is dangerous.

What exactly do you do?

Also, it's always a bad idea to accuse someone of being brainwashed. It's always possible that the accuser is the one brainwashed but has been brainwashed to think that they're not, as well as being brainwashed to think that people who disagree have been brainwashed.

[Retlaw May]

Umm, no effence Savage Ed, but one of your story examples if contrary to your arguement (not to say that you are wrong or right, just pointing this out). Have you actually read the book Frankenstien? Frankenstein's monster only became the way he was, because no one accepted him and all cried out that he was a monster. He actually started out innocent and nice, but it was because others treated him like, and expected him to act like, a monster, he became one.

[Student of Trinity]

Quote:

Originally written by Your ad could be here- contact me.:
Right, so I had this great post written out. It pointed out puns, it had elegant quote-work, it had FYTs. It was beautiful. But when I tried to post it, "the connection timed out" and I lost everything. So this time, I'm just going to spell out the main point rather than answering every little detail individually.

I think this is the best way to argue. Argument isn't architecture. Buttressing generally adds weakness rather than strength, because it just gives people a chance to ignore your main point and take you to task on side issues.

[*i]

Quote:

If you don't like me because I don't sympathize with machines and artificial life forms, I think that's a pretty pathetic reason to write somebody off. Maybe you've been brainwashed by movies like I, Robot or for some reason think humans have a right to try to outdo nature, but my point is technological advancement without regard to the consequences is dangerous.

...

Maybe you missed the point of stories like Frankenstein, or The Matrix, Terminator, or Blade Runner, but the lesson is that to create out of hubris -- to believe that humans can create something greater than themselves or reshape creation to their whim -- is a dangerous and ultimately tragic line of reasoning.

The movie I, Robot was a pathetic excuse to get Will Smith to smash things. I, Robot's message was just the same as Frankenstein, and the others as far as I can tell. This is unfortunate, because the book reached a different conclusion. I suggest reading it along with Asimov's other Robot works. It gives a slightly different perspective than the typical techno-horror stories that sell movie tickets.

The movies a priori assume that humans should not attempt to exceed themselves rather than analyze the complex issues surrounding it. This harkens back to the tired old theme of technology = bad. The real world is never this simple.

Terminator was the most egregious of these: we make AI, it decides we are inferior, and then wipes us out. This makes a good movie premise, but hardly a lesson for society. Matrix does a better job in that the machines were not inherently evil, it was humanity's abuse of them that forced their hand -- as someone pointed out this is more true with Frankenstein.

If we cut through all the glitz, what it comes down to, is this: Should we create technology without analyzing the consequences? Of course not. I don't think anyone would disagree with this.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to foresee all the consequences good and bad of what we do despite our best efforts. Some have advocated the so called "precautionary principle". It basically says don't do anything until you are sure the negatives are minimal. A good idea in principle, but impossible in practicality where it amounts to "don't take any risks ever despite the great benefits".

Quote:

The question isn't if humans could create something better than themselves; it's if it would a wise or safe choice to attempt to do so. The end result would be a creation that dwarfs the ability of its maker and would lack any real obligation to remain under their control. If the Shapers had thought about this before recklessly creating drakons, they wouldn't be facing their own impending doom.

In reality, it isn't the drakons that willlead to the Shapers destruction. It's their foolishness and short-sightedness in attempting to make something better than themselves.

Did you play GF2? It wasn't the Shapers as a whole that made this decision, it was Barzahl, a renegade Shaper. (As an aside, I have a hard time believing Barzahl, by himself, could have accomplished so much, but that's another isse) So I think you are wrong in making this argument as the Shapers would have never done this.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to control the actions of individuals. Fortunately, how Drakons came about (see above) was a tad unrealistic. This is true for any large technology these days: genetically modified super organisms, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, etc. Developing these would require massive amounts of resources that a small group would be unable to develop.

The fear is, of course, a government would actually see the need to develop these without proper controls. That is why, in the real world, diplomacy and alertness is needed.

[Hamilton G. Phantamos]

Quote:

Ah, but it's okay to declare yourselves above these creatures? It's okay to decide which of them die and which of them live? To play god in another way?

Why not? Destroying rogue or contaminated serviles and creating new ones to replace them is the only humane option with no long term consequences, since a freed servile would never be able to find its niche in society. You could try giving them their own island to live but that's only delaying the issue.

And how a designer couldn't be above a mass producible, readily replaceable construct of their own design is still beyond me. You haven't given me a single convincing explanation to support the belief that serviles are inherently equal to humans, other than obvious things like they both bleed and they both die.

Quote:

Also, it's always a bad idea to accuse someone of being brainwashed. It's always possible that the accuser is the one brainwashed but has been brainwashed to think that they're not, as well as being brainwashed to think that people who disagree have been brainwashed.

Or maybe the individuals they accuse of being brainwashed have misplaced sympathy for man made creations rather than natural living beings, and such a misplaced association to value the life of a machine as equivalent or greater than that of natural beings hints at a loose grip on reality. Of course, that's if someone wanted to make it a personal issue, which would be counter productive to the actual discussion at hand.

Quote:

I disagree. I think by sentient machine you mean something which is self-aware, yes? Then this machine has experiences, hopes, ideas and memories of its very own. The same goes for serviles and drakons. If you kill a sentient machine/servile/drakon, how will you replace THAT machine/servile/drakon? You could conceive and raise another machine/servile/drakon, but its life experiences and memories would make it inherently distinct from the original, even if it was a spitting image.

Maybe, maybe not. But it is still possible and relatively easy to shape a new one with a similar personality if you wanted to. Also, the fact that they were designed for a specific purpose supercedes any individual rights they may deserve were they not an artificially created life form. However, as far as serviles, they are an artificial life form designed for some specific purpose to fulfill some objective; an "intelligent" robot crafted magically into flesh and blood. As for drakons, they never should have been made in the first place and have serious issues with compassion and obedience. They're inherently a threat with every human they'll potentially come across. The only compromise they'd accept is to live at their mercy or die.

Quote:

The movie I, Robot was a pathetic excuse to get Will Smith to smash things. I, Robot's message was just the same as Frankenstein, and the others as far as I can tell. This is unfortunate, because the book reached a different conclusion. I suggest reading it along with Asimov's other Robot works. It gives a slightly different perspective than the typical techno-horror stories that sell movie tickets.

I've actually read the I Robot book but the key issue is that all androids, except for those with very specific, very extenuating purposes, have it ingrained in their programming to obey and protect humans, and preserve their own existence as long as it doesn't conflict with the other two objectives. As far as I can tell, drakons and eyebeasts don't have anything like that written into their minds, and that makes them inherently dangerous. This is also why I cite The Matrix as an example. The machines weren't programmed according to the three laws of robotics or a similar concept, so they felt no obligation to obey the "lesser" beings that created them. They were smarter. Stronger. Nearly immortal. Why listen to this short lived, fleshy, emotional, fragile being when it can make decisions it sees as more logical by leaps and bounds?

Drakons are similar in that they lack both empathy (at least for "lesser" beings) and any kind of control that obligates them to obey humans. Combined, that makes a dangerous combination.

And to be honest, in all my examples I'm referring to the popularized movie version but the point remains the same. Reckless pursuit of scientific advancement is inherently dangerous. Perhaps it's because Shapers have placed themselves above the law in regards to outsiders that they ignore the consequences of the bulk of their creations on society.

To be honest, I only played the demo for Geneforge 1 and 2. I only really got into the series with Geneforge 3. But based on what I've heard, Barzahl is exemplary of what I'm talking about: a short sighted, mealomaniac mad scientist that invents without thinking about the consequences. I agree that technology isn't inherently evil, but its use or development without conscience can be and is potentially dangerous as well.

And if you think I'm saying this based on any religious perspective, you have NO IDEA how far off base you are. Trust me.

[John S]

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:

Quote:

Also, it's always a bad idea to accuse someone of being brainwashed. It's always possible that the accuser is the one brainwashed but has been brainwashed to think that they're not, as well as being brainwashed to think that people who disagree have been brainwashed.

Or maybe the individuals they accuse of being brainwashed have misplaced sympathy for man made creations rather than natural living beings, and such a misplaced association to value the life of a machine as equivalent or greater than that of natural beings hints at a loose grip on reality. Of course, that's if someone wanted to make it a personal issue, which would be counter productive to the actual discussion at hand.

That was no implication that you are brainwashed or otherwise less intelligent. That was a statement that you shouldn't accuse people of being brainwashed, which gave slightly humorous reasons why.

I'm getting tired of you arguing. Not for the reason you might expect: I fully understand that someone who disagrees is by no means automatically unintelligent and that their opinion might have merit as well. It's because you're being paranoid and assuming that since everyone is on the other side, they're slinging insults at you.

[*i]

Quote:

And if you think I'm saying this based on any religious perspective, you have NO IDEA how far off base you are. Trust me.

Please don't accuse me of things I never said. Also, I would refrain from shouting at me.

[Randomizer]

Regarding serviles as replaceable creations like the others that players can create:

 

Serviles are born and reproduce like humans. They have lower intelligence than humans but this maybe more because any intelligent serviles were killed by Shaper society.

 

In GF1 the serviles on Sucia Island had been left alone for 200 odd years so the more intelligent ones had survived and started thinking for themselves without the "benefit" of the Shapers. The Awaken sect felt that they were equal to humans and wanted to be treated that way. The Obeyers wanted to stay as slaves but had their doubts. The Takers wanted revenge since their lands were poisoned from a sealed lab. Some serviles were intelligent enough to equal or exceed human norms. The crazed Taker cultist sacrificed their sanity in order to be able to use haman magic.

 

In GF2 some of the serviles from Sucia Island were taken to Drypeak to help with the experiments. The Awaken had figured out a way of modifying serviles so they could do magic. The Takers were working with the Drakons to achieve their revenge except for some that just went bandit.

 

In GF3 you have servile rebels that are trying to overthrow the Shaper Council.

 

The origin of serviles has not really been given so they may be creations that can now reproduce and/or be grown in vats and programmed which is sort of implied in GF1. They may also be the product of modifying human enemies in order to create a slave race. There are some hints that something was done to the inhabitants of Sucia Island that opposed the original Shapers.

 

Either way they are no longer simple creations that can be made and destroyed until you get what you want. Serviles are intelligent and have memories like humans. Trying to equate them with machines is an attempt to treat them as something lower than what they are.

[Hamilton G. Phantamos]

Quote:

I'm getting tired of you arguing. Not for the reason you might expect: I fully understand that someone who disagrees is by no means automatically unintelligent and that their opinion might have merit as well. It's because you're being paranoid and assuming that since everyone is on the other side, they're slinging insults at you.

I have a right to express and defend my opinion and give supporting arguments for how I came to that conclusion. Other than someone saying they were starting to personally dislike me because they didn't agree with me (like I care), I haven't accused anyone of slinging insults nor am I "paranoid." I fail to see how you came to that conclusion, or what it even has to do with the issue at hand.

Quote:

Originally written by *i:

Quote:

And if you think I'm saying this based on any religious perspective, you have NO IDEA how far off base you are. Trust me.

Please don't accuse me of things I never said. Also, I would refrain from shouting at me.

That wasn't directed at you. And the concept of shouting doesn't apply, since they're words typed on a keyboard, not words spoken verbally. I wouldn't call it shouting; I was only trying to emphasize how much of a mistaken the individual that would misconstrue that from my stance.

Quote:

Either way they are no longer simple creations that can be made and destroyed until you get what you want. Serviles are intelligent and have memories like humans. Trying to equate them with machines is an attempt to treat them as something lower than what they are.

They may or may not have been made by altering humans who opposed the Shapers to silence them. However, if this is not the case, they ARE the equivalent of machines as far as the technology of our world and Geneforge allows the analogy to be applied. Most devices in Geneforge are made by growing or breeding them for a specific purpose, such as the acid pods, control panels, living tools, etc. Machines aren't built in factories with blueprints and prototypes the way they are in our world, they're made in shaping halls with notes written onto scrolls containing magic information. Prototypes are usually deformed or deranged monstrosities where the only humane option is to put them out of their misery.

Comparing them to machines as we know them requires you to think about this dilemma: If human beings one day built machines with limited but functional intelligence to perform tasks under dangerous situations with little to no input and supervision, would we give one of them freedom because it decided it no longer wanted to perform its given tasks? What if it was made to be smarter to handle a more important task that required a mind that could handle information faster than a human but maintain or emulate a human's ability to create unique and spontaneous solutions?

If serviles were the product into pure research to create an intelligent beings to serve as companions to humans, their right to be fully independent would be a different issue. But they were built to perform the dangerous dirty work that humans don't want to do. As a result, the need to fulfill that function supercedes any considerations on what they deserve based on the merits of their intelligence.

In fact, they're designed to enjoy their work and not question the tasks they perform, and the vast majority fit that criteria. The small exceptions have to be destroyed because they are defective. They don't match their design specification and there's always a chance they could damage the minds of the obedient serviles. If a domestic android began showing the same symptoms in our world, would people honor their androids desire to be respected as a genuine being with their own personality, or would factories issue recalls seeing the potential danger that could arise from the situtaion? The problem is compounded by the fact that all of the intelligent serviles encountered in-game are rebllious, which means they're at least distantly in league with the drakons, which leads to even more problems.

In the end, you can't please all of the people all of the time. If serviles didn't do their job or exist it'd only mean there'd be more menial and dangerous labor for humans to do and you'd replace an underclass of artifical beings with an underclass of downtrodden humans. happiness is worth more? Also, why reserve sympathy for serviles? Why not extend the same right to freedom to thaads and battle alphas?

[Khoth]

It's really easy to replace humans - the method is simple and has been known for a very long time.

 

If you smash up a robot, hardly anyone would know how to build a new one, and it would take the effort of thousands of people to do it.

 

Look to me that it's the humans who are disposable.

[Student of Trinity]

Emphasis is available in the form of italics. All caps is the accepted internet equivalent of shouting. It's considered rude in practically all electronic communications. If you think you've never had a problem with it before, I wouldn't be so sure.

 

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:

If human beings one day built machines with limited but functional intelligence to perform tasks under dangerous situations with little to no input and supervision, would we give one of them freedom because it decided it no longer wanted to perform its given tasks?

You've repeated this same point several times now, as if it were unanswerable. I answered it directly a while ago: Yes.

[*i]

Quote:

That wasn't directed at you. And the concept of shouting doesn't apply, since they're words typed on a keyboard, not words spoken verbally. I wouldn't call it shouting; I was only trying to emphasize how much of a mistaken the individual that would misconstrue that from my stance.

1) If it wasn't directed at me, then don't put it immediately following a reply to my post or put a "too all" before that last paragraph.

2) As far as shouting, ALL CAPS, is an equivalent in computer speak, so using it is shouting as far as I'm concened which is very impolite.

[Hamilton G. Phantamos]

Quote:

You've repeated this same point several times now, as if it were unanswerable. I answered it directly a while ago: Yes.

I don't think that's a realistic perspective depending on the application. The neccesity of its construction supercedes any unintentional individualism that may arise. Unless a fully independent entity was the point of the research, it's more of a bug or glitch than an emerging personality with its own right to existence. It had been properly designe dto begin with, it would enjoy performing its task without question. If not, it's a failed model.

The same applies to serviles that don't enjoy performing their tasks. If they remained hidden in isolated communities away from populated areas, that'd be one thing and the Shapers wouldn't neccesarily have to hunt them down. But the small minority who want to be free and the even smaller minority that actually have full intelligence always try to recruit or persuade the obedient serviles, which is disruptive to the function of the rest of society. That and they do tend to violently oppose the Shapers as well as outsiders that are anything less than abhorred by them. Humans who are neutral or borderline tend to get coerced into seeing things from their point of view, and those who were supportive are left to live in fear, if they get to live at all.

[Student of Trinity]

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:
Unless a fully independent entity was the point of the research, it's more of a bug or glitch than an emerging personality with its own right to existence. ... t's a failed model.

Of course it's a bug, a glitch, and a failed model. It is also an emerging personality with its own right to exist. Insisting that these conditions are mutually exclusive is not an argument, just a repetition of your premise.

[John S]

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:

Quote:

I'm getting tired of you arguing. Not for the reason you might expect: I fully understand that someone who disagrees is by no means automatically unintelligent and that their opinion might have merit as well. It's because you're being paranoid and assuming that since everyone is on the other side, they're slinging insults at you.

I have a right to express and defend my opinion and give supporting arguments for how I came to that conclusion. Other than someone saying they were starting to personally dislike me because they didn't agree with me (like I care), I haven't accused anyone of slinging insults nor am I "paranoid." I fail to see how you came to that conclusion, or what it even has to do with the issue at hand.

Of course you have a right to argue. What you don't have a right to do is insult people. You may feel that they started it, and that you then have the right to answer in turn. That's where your paranoia comes into play. You're seeing insults where there are none (or occasionally where there are, but not so often).

And what do debating tactics have to do with this specific issue? Pretty much nothing. But if you would quit your smear campaign this whole thing would be much cleaner. It's not like they're helping you convince others or win the argument.

And I assume that you'll deny that you ever insulted anyone during the course of this debate. Well, here's some evidence; if you feel that this isn't enough, I can find more.

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:
Or maybe the individuals they accuse of being brainwashed have misplaced sympathy for man made creations rather than natural living beings, and such a misplaced association to value the life of a machine as equivalent or greater than that of natural beings hints at a loose grip on reality. Of course, that's if someone wanted to make it a personal issue, which would be counter productive to the actual discussion at hand.

You interpreted my post as an insult and responded in what you percieved to be the same matter. Though you said, "Or maybe...", your intent is clear.

Also, aside, you cannot say that my sympathy is misplaced until you have proven so, because that is part of the key issue.

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:
If you don't like me because I don't sympathize with machines and artificial life forms, I think that's a pretty pathetic reason to write somebody off.

Calling someone pathetic is not the best way to do things in most cases because in most cases you want to avoid using tactics commonly seen on the primary school playground.

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:
Other than someone saying they were starting to personally dislike me because they didn't agree with me (like I care)

Disdain, especially when you go out of your way to point out your disdain, is not a proper attitude; he is, after all, a human being with rights and emotions.

[Micawber]

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:
Maybe, maybe not. But it is still possible and relatively easy to shape a new one with a similar personality if you wanted to. Also, the fact that they were designed for a specific purpose supercedes any individual rights they may deserve were they not an artificially created life form. However, as far as serviles, they are an artificial life form designed for some specific purpose to fulfill some objective; an "intelligent" robot crafted magically into flesh and blood.

Well you completely ignored my point with "maybe, maybe not", and then carried on and illogically side-stepped your own argument, which I was quoting back at you. You said a child could never be replaced with one exactly the same, because its memories and experiences would be unique. I said the same would be equally true of a self-aware machine. You then said it would be possible to shape one with a 'similar' personality. This is right after you were ranting about the unique value of "THAT child", etc, etc. Do you see the inconsistency?

Quote:

And if you think I'm saying this based on any religious perspective, you have NO IDEA how far off base you are. Trust me.

That was me; following your statement "progress in that work without humility and the acceptance that whatever we create isn't capable of comparison with the wonders of the universe is dangerous," I said that your argument was expressed in religious terms. I stand by what I said.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally by ginger8445:

 

Quote:

I don't really know if this relates to the topic but it's in the right forum. ok in G2 when you are talking th the women who runs the servile slave in the "desert" right after or two places after the tutorial, She asks you to find a "smart" servile who is "infecting" the other serviles. You finder her and tell her to come with you because she is in trouble. Than you continue your journey for a few places and don't return. Then when you return and talk to the woman and she says you did the right thing, was this really the right thing to do? I mean you got experience for it and that's nice but to me the dees just seems wrong! What do you think?

P.S. sry I can remember the name of the women I know it would be helpful but I just can't.

Forgive me if someone already answered this and I missed it. You're talking about Thossila (the woman) and Sencia (the intelligent servile) in Drypeak. There are too options. Tell Thossila about Sencia, or lie to Thossila about Sencia. Either way, you get experience. If you tell the truth (which is sounds like you did), Sencia is killed. Telling the truth is pro-Shaper and lying is pro-servile. The correct choice to make depends on which sect you want to join, but there are so many other ways to increase your favor with one side or the other that it hardly matters what you choose.

 

Dikiyoba.

 

Edit: Fixed quote.

[Lilith]

Quote:

Originally written by T:

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:
Other than someone saying they were starting to personally dislike me because they didn't agree with me (like I care)

Disdain, especially when you go out of your way to point out your disdain, is not a proper attitude; he is, after all, a human being with rights and emotions.

To give the devil his due, he can't really be blamed for starting that one.

And I don't dislike him because I disagree with his arguments; I dislike him because he appears to be a hippie.

[Hamilton G. Phantamos]

Quote:

Well you completely ignored my point with "maybe, maybe not", and then carried on and illogically side-stepped your own argument, which I was quoting back at you. You said a child could never be replaced with one exactly the same, because its memories and experiences would be unique. I said the same would be equally true of a self-aware machine. You then said it would be possible to shape one with a 'similar' personality. This is right after you were ranting about the unique value of "THAT child", etc, etc. Do you see the inconsistency?

Nope. Because humans aren't allowed to be created or modified by Shaping. It's the one thing in the Shaper world that retains the value of human life. I've already explained the difference between shaped creations with an intended purpose and genuine human beings. Also, I've explained multiple ways a machine's "personality" could easily be stored, saved, or replaced. The same can't be said for a human, hence the frailty and uniqueness of human life. Also, I've said that humans are exempt from the same considerations because creations have some primary utility, and perceivable intelligence is a byproduct of shaping them for more and more advanced purposes.

Obviously a fyora ranks pretty low on utility. A Thaad or Battle Alpha has a rudimentary level of intelligence, even comparable to some serviles. But for the most part they're just cannon fodder so Guardians don't have to risk the lives of themselves or their troops. A drayk or drakon probably has some use as a research aid or military applications, but its personal memories and experiences aren't its primary function, and if one dies a new one can be shaped to replace it, possibly even with the same memories. But under no circumstance is any human allowed to be "resurrected" through shaping for any reason. It might seem unfair. But then again, it's the Shapers' rule, and a very important one at that.

Hence, "maybe, maybe not" it is possible to replace a human life with a shaped creation, but it would be a severe violation of Shaper beliefs and practices. The people who try to do that tend to get hunted down and executed for you know, being necromancers and things like that. It might seem hypocritical of Shapers (from your perspective) to create beings to use as cannon fodder and disposable commodities, but taking steps to prevent the same practices being applied to human life is the one thing that gives them a teeny tiny modicum of restraint from all out abuse of their abilities.

Quote:

That was me...I said that your argument was expressed in religious terms. I stand by what I said.

You're free to believe that if you want. But it's wildly inaccurate in describing my perspective.

Quote:

And what do debating tactics have to do with this specific issue? Pretty much nothing. But if you would quit your smear campaign this whole thing would be much cleaner. It's not like they're helping you convince others or win the argument.

And I assume that you'll deny that you ever insulted anyone during the course of this debate. Well, here's some evidence; if you feel that this isn't enough, I can find more.

Wow, you're deadset on trying to make this into something personal, aren't you? I already told you I'm not going down that road with you. If you really feel the need, feel free to send me any hate mail you have to my private message box. You're cluttering up the topic with personal attacks against me that I'm really not even fazed by. Also I have a hard time understanding what "smear campaign" your talking about, but that too is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Explain it in my private message box or let it go.

Quote:

And I don't dislike him because I disagree with his arguments; I dislike him because he appears to be a hippie.

Again, way off. Probably not as much, since I do have environmental concerns. But I'm definitely not a "hippie."

[Lilith]

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:
Also, I've explained multiple ways a machine's "personality" could easily be stored, saved, or replaced. The same can't be said for a human, hence the frailty and uniqueness of human life.

There's no evidence in the games that Shapers have the degree of control over creations' minds that you've been implying. In fact, there's considerable evidence against it; if Shapers could really fine-tune the personalities of their creations, there wouldn't be a need for all those shackles and discipline wands you see around the place.

Quote:

Also, I've said that humans are exempt from the same considerations because creations have some primary utility, and perceivable intelligence is a byproduct of shaping them for more and more advanced purposes.

What you haven't explained is why the process by which their existence came about should have any relevance to their inherent value. Irrespective of creations' instrumental value (that is, their usefulness to others), they also possess value purely by virtue of being sentient beings with their own interests. A creation which won't follow orders may have little or no instrumental value, but it still has inherent value deriving from the fact of its consciousness and ability to experience fulfilment of its interests.

Well, that's more or less how my preferred ethical system sees things, anyway. Of course, as we seem to have a fundamental disagreement of principles here, that may not be worth much. Full disclosure time: what moral axioms do you hold? If you can't or won't answer that, then which three moral philosophers do you most admire?

[Student of Trinity]

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:
I've explained multiple ways a machine's "personality" could easily be stored, saved, or replaced.

Asserted, yes; explained, no. If you think you really can explain this, I'd be very interested. Perhaps you could start by defining personality.

[Randomizer]

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:
Because humans aren't allowed to be created or modified by Shaping.

You haven't been paying attention to the activities in Geneforge. Humans are being modified all the time and that is part of the reason that there is a rebellion. In GF1 you are introduced to cannisters that can modify a human to increase an ablility, gain a spell, or learn how to shape a creation. You said that you only played the demo so you missed the main part about the Geneforge and how it can do a massive modification of humans to give them god-like abilities. Part of the secret of Sucia Island is that Shapers did human modifications at the very start. In GF2 the cannister usage decides reactions and what endings you can get. The Awaken in the Magus Complex can modify humans and serviles so the can cast spells without undergoing Shaper training. You said you played a lot of GF3 so you should have seen on Harmony Island (the second one) the two cannisters locked up in the lowest level by the island's Shaper. One is a normal cannister that will modify shapers and other humans. The second which you can't use gives magical abilities to the rebel leader.

The series has as a main point whether serviles should be treated as better than just creations that the shapers have no responsibility to treat as independent. But Geneforge is also completely about whether you should change yourself and others, both humans and serviles. Necromancers and other magic users are restricted because they don't take the care that Shapers are supposed to practice to avoid unintended consequences. You missed in GF1 the sealed lab where two cannisted addicted shaper researchers tried to go beyond death and modify themselves so they would survive.

You are more concerned with the initial origin of serviles and machines and not what they have become. If they exceed their original design then they should be destroyed as defective and replaced. You don't want to accept that perhaps the intelligent serviles and self aware (sentient) machines might develope new purposes that might be better than what they are designed for in the first place.

You might not like their choices, but only 170 years ago slaves in the US were treated like Geneforge serviles. If they rebelled against their assigned tasks they they were whipped, shackled and even killed. Some Muslim sects view Jews and other non-Muslims as inferior creatures like pigs and monkeys so they can be treated differently than Muslims. This is why they can justify killing non-Muslims and other practices that are supposed to be contray to the Koran. By using origin as the sole criteria you can define away any arguement.

[Suspicious Vlish]

Thuryl:

Quote:

There's no evidence in the games that Shapers have the degree of control over creations' minds that you've been implying. In fact, there's considerable evidence against it; if Shapers could really fine-tune the personalities of their creations, there wouldn't be a need for all those shackles and discipline wands you see around the place.

I just thought I'd chip in and comment on this.

It is apparent throughout the series that the level of control a Shaper can exercise over a creation is inversely proportional to the intelligence of that particular creation.

 

Experienced Shapers seem to be able to exercise considerable control over 'simple-minded' creations such as Glaahks and Battle-Alphas. Analogy: A sheep is less likely to act unruly than a dog.

 

I think that the Discipline Wands are more a rare 'contingency plan' in case an experimental creation goes berserk. They musn't be used frequently, given that they are rarely present in the game, and often have full charges.

 

As for the shackles, I always got the impression that they were for unruly serviles. And as I mentioned above, control is inversely proportional to creation intelligence. Serviles are highly intelligent creatures, and hence are prone to 'acting out'. In general, however, Shapers appear to have good control over their less intelligent creations.

 

Thuryl, I'm also curious as to whether you are a vegetarian. You present arguments which are often used by the rational proponents of the animal rights movement, in that all sentient beings have intrinsic value.

[Kelandon]

I will fully admit that I haven't read this whole argument, but if one side is arguing that creations are essentially non-individual and replaceable, like ants or bees or something, then that argument seems plainly false. Serviles (and drakons and others) are clearly individual in ways that are not easy to replicate — how would you propose making a copy of Learned Darian? Shaping something with similar traits is not replacing the actual servile; to say so is like asserting that identical twins are, in fact, two of the same person.

 

And if you're claiming that thinking, individualized beings are easy to replicate and therefore have no personal value as living things, then in what way does that not apply to humans?

 

My understanding was that the essence of the GF dilemma is that serviles and people are exactly the same, save that serviles were deliberately created at one point and people just evolved or something. Serviles (and drakons) are no more machines than humans or shapers are.

[Hamilton G. Phantamos]

Quote:

Asserted, yes; explained, no. If you think you really can explain this, I'd be very interested. Perhaps you could start by defining personality.

I don't do AI research nor am I a computer engineer. However, I'm certain that if the breakthrough in both hard and software allowed a sufficiently advanced and complicated series of algorithms to emulate an independent intelligence or personality, then that same program could be copied and stored in a variety of duplicates, databanks, or massive storage disks. I'm not going to spell out all of the technical aspects mainly because the required technology would all be theoretical and I wouldn't be qualified to give explicit step by step instructions regardless. Use your imagination.

Quote:

You might not like their choices, but only 170 years ago slaves in the US were treated like Geneforge serviles. If they rebelled against their assigned tasks they they were whipped, shackled and even killed. Some Muslim sects view Jews and other non-Muslims as inferior creatures like pigs and monkeys so they can be treated differently than Muslims. This is why they can justify killing non-Muslims and other practices that are supposed to be contray to the Koran. By using origin as the sole criteria you can define away any arguement.

Randomizer, first of all it's true that the Geneforge and the canisters exist to augment human abilities, and there are entities you can go to to be reshaped to have new abilities. However, these activities and research are forbidden by Shaper code and you will even be arrested at the end of G3 if you used the canisters to increase your strength. They may not do a good job of tracking down every single canister and destroying it, but the Shapers do enforce their rule of "no shaping or augmenting humans" whenever possible, and usually strictly.

Second, the reason why your slavery analogy fails is because the Africans that were abducted and sold abroad by Spanish and Portuguese privateers (basically, pirates sanctioned on behalf of the crown) had an existence and a life prior to being sold into bondage. In fact they were as human as those who sold and bought them, who weren't responsible for their creation. And just for the record, if a race of subservient beings could have been artificially created through alchemy to be used as servants, it would have saved a lot of African lives, and I would have no qualms with it whatsoever.

This is not the case for serviles. A better analogy would be serviles owning other serviles or drakons owning other drakons and forcing them to do their bidding. Many of the rogue serviles were forced to become rogue by other serviles, and "persuaded" that they deserved their independence for the humans. For me to accept your argument (that your stating a second time), I'd have to accept the premises that creator and creation are both inherently equal, and that despite having been created by human hands, serviles are inherently free beings.

The purpose of technology is to improve and ease the lives of humans. It's why we have microwaves, indoor plumbing, vaccination shots, computers, airplanes, and all of the other amenities that we take for granted as merely a part of our lives. All products of technology are consquently a means of making life easier for human beings. It doesn't matter what that technology is, if we can create it, we have a right to use it however we need to. Whether by crafting machines on an assembly line, gene-splicing in a research lab, or magically drawing the very "essence" of life out of the air, if we can create intelligent beings to perform tasks that we can't or won't do, then we have a right to utilize said beings for our own ends, just the same as any other technology.

You speak of slavery and the degradation of human beings. It probably shouldn't surprise you that in many parts of the world in some industries, an equivalent system is still in place. Perhaps most dangerous and most well known is the diamond trade, where African workers work in dangerous, unhealthy, and life threatening conditions only to be poked, prodded, and strip searched for resources mined in their own nation of birth to be sold abroad by foreign interests. The diamond industry is one of the most lucrative businesses in the world -- if you happen to be on the selling end and work for the few major distributors that use artificial scarcity to jack up the price of their product.

If we could build a machine, or grow a lifeform, or magically pull one from thin air to perform such dangerous tasks and if we could guarantee with at least 90% accuracy that we could program them in some way to enjoy their tasks, thereby allowing the humans that have been forced to do it to find a better life for themselves, I'd study to join the research team responsible tomorrow.

Serviles aren't inherently mistreated or forced to do any work that a human wouldn't have to do any way. Shapers may seem callous and uncaring but they do what is in their power to improve even the existence and function of serviles. They tried to research a way to make them less deathly afraid of rogue and experimental creations; it failed. They tried to improve them on Gull Island to be better able to resist the cold; it failed, miserably. There are some menial tasks that humans take pride in doing, like the herb gatherers on Harmony Isle, and they usually work side by side with the serviles.

You can debate whether or not the serviles can genuinely enjoy the work they do when it's been hard wired into their consciousness to do so, but you can't ignore the fact that except for a small minority, most of them do, and they only perform jobs that humans would have to fill if they weren't doing them.

And again, why spend so much time feeling sorry for serviles? They aren't the only creations capable of thought or speech. It seems every creation down the lne with the possible exception of fyoras can verbally communicate in at least broken sentences, so do they deserve their freedom as well? By your logic, they must, because they are capable of independent thought and have their own goals and ideas, no matter how simple they may be. Battle Alphas are pretty dim-witted and are bad tempered in the best of moods. If one goes "rogue," does it deserve any less to be free just because they have a tendency to clobber everything in sight?

If serviles deserve to be free from your point of view, the only creations Shapers should be allowed to command are ornks and fyoras, since they'd be seen as livestock and pets respectively. It would be a waste of time to create beings to be free rather than to be used to fulfill some goal. It may seem like a hard choice but it's a lot better than the option of requiring a human to do it in its place.

On the possibility that serviles are the descendents of reshaped humans, if that's the case, the only truly just action would be to reshape them to revert them to human beings. They'll never get everything they deserve to experience out of life otherwise. Otherwise, if serviles are a Shaper creation and weren't made by reshaping humans, then it's a neccesary "evil" (from your point of view) to use them to perform the menial tasks a human wouldn't be expected to do for a lifetime. After all, it could be worse.

The Shapers could use child labor.

[Kelandon]

You know, it's not a pure dichotomy between "serviles as slaves doing work for the shapers" and "serviles doing nothing for the shapers." People do work because they get paid (or, more generally, get some reward).

 

Also, I was under the impression that employing the death penalty on the mentally retarded is even more controversial than the death penalty itself is. Human beings with the intelligence of a battle alpha "go rogue" sometimes, and we have serious moral qualms about just killing them.

[Hamilton G. Phantamos]

Quote:

Also, I was under the impression that employing the death penalty on the mentally retarded is even more controversial than the death penalty itself is. Human beings with the intelligence of a battle alpha "go rogue" sometimes, and we have serious moral qualms about just killing them.

I think that's because for the most part they can't rip a man's arm out the socket or seperate his torso from his legs like snapping a twig.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally by Savage Ed Walcott:

 

Quote:

I don't do AI research nor am I a computer engineer. However, I'm certain that if the breakthrough in both hard and software allowed a sufficiently advanced and complicated series of algorithms to emulate an independent intelligence or personality, then that same program could be copied and stored in a variety of duplicates, databanks, or massive storage disks. I'm not going to spell out all of the technical aspects mainly because the required technology would all be theoretical and I wouldn't be qualified to give explicit step by step instructions regardless. Use your imagination.

But if you're only talking about an emulation, then that's not the same as actual personality or intelligence. Imitation of personality or intelligence is different than really having personality and intelligence. Something that resembles sentience is very different from something that actually has sentience.

 

An emulation could be easily backed up. Real intelligence couldn't, because it would always be learning, developing, and changing.

 

Dikiyoba.

[Student of Trinity]

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:
f the breakthrough in both hard and software allowed a sufficiently advanced and complicated series of algorithms to emulate an independent intelligence or personality, then that same program could be copied and stored.

Hmmm; I guess that's a reasonable response. But if a really sentient computer program can be made, then I expect human personalities could also be copied. Reading the brain might be a bit tough now, but mapping it non-destructively to the cellular level, or close to it, might actually be possible in the foreseeable future. And then if we really understood sentience, enough to program it, perhaps we could recognize it in brain structure, and thus copy it from people.

As you can see here, I pretty much have the 'hard AI' attitude that sentience is some kind of formal property of patterns. Humans, robots, serviles ... that doesn't matter. We're all dust in the wind.

[Hamilton G. Phantamos]

Quote:

But if you're only talking about an emulation, then that's not the same as actual personality or intelligence. Imitation of personality or intelligence is different than really having personality and intelligence. Something that resembles sentience is very different from something that actually has sentience.

What I meant was, sufficient software and hardware would allow a thinking, learning, intellectually growing mind that would be artificial only in the sense that it would be produced by a series of ones and zeroes running through a processor rather than DNA and hormones (which may even be components of such a machine). Whatever the case, it would be the result of human ingenuity and research and not natural selection.

Quote:

An emulation could be easily backed up. Real intelligence couldn't, because it would always be learning, developing, and changing.

Again, the machine would use an emulation in the sense that its consciousness is based on a human coded program and complex circuitry. Other than that, it would be a "real" intelligence in the sense that it could analyze the world around it and make its own judgements on how to react.

Quote:

Hmmm; I guess that's a reasonable response. But if a really sentient computer program can be made, then I expect human personalities could also be copied. Reading the brain might be a bit tough now, but mapping it non-destructively to the cellular level, or close to it, might actually be possible in the foreseeable future. And then if we really understood sentience, enough to program it, perhaps we could recognize it in brain structure, and thus copy it from people.

If and when that time comes, I'm sure society will still make some distinction between intelligences that arose from human thought patterns and programmed, independent machines. Or maybe the issue would become entirely academic. We'd have to wait and see, but infortunately I doubt either of us will live long enough to actually see it become common place if it ever becomes technically feasible.

I also came to a realization earlier. The main reason most drakon personalities and intelligences are disposable is because they lack obediance, empathy, and are highly morally apathetic. Combine that with the fact that they are extremely hardy, long lived, and have a tendency to exhale searing blasts of heat and their inherent danger becomes readily apparent. Due to their pride, it's almost impossible to make a deal with one, and even if one is reached it's slanted heavily in favor of what the drakon thinks would be appropiate. Most of their memories would be of killing, maiming, eating, and terrorizing humans, meaning you wouldn't want to reshape a creature with the same personality. However, hunting down and exterminating the drakons that are a threat would more than likely upset the ones who were neutral or apathetic to human activities and they'd eventually try to avenge their drakonian brethren. Very few would probably go into hiding peacefully. If you committed yourself to destroying only the ones that were a clear threat, you'd have to be prepared to deal with all of them.

[Lilith]

Quote:

Originally written by Waylander:
Thuryl, I'm also curious as to whether you are a vegetarian. You present arguments which are often used by the rational proponents of the animal rights movement, in that all sentient being have intrinsic value.

I'm not a vegetarian, but I probably ought to be; I don't regard my lifestyle as a good moral example. (Those of you who follow General may remember my little "become an aid worker or shut up" speech about morality: I have, by and large, chosen to shut up, but as evidenced by this thread I sometimes fail even at that.)

[wary wanderer]

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:

I also came to a realization earlier. The main reason most drakon personalities and intelligences are disposable is because they lack obediance, empathy, and are highly morally apathetic. Combine that with the fact that they are extremely hardy, long lived, and have a tendency to exhale searing blasts of heat and their inherent danger becomes readily apparent. Due to their pride, it's almost impossible to make a deal with one, and even if one is reached it's slanted heavily in favor of what the drakon thinks would be appropiate. Most of their memories would be of killing, maiming, eating, and terrorizing humans, meaning you wouldn't want to reshape a creature with the same personality. However, hunting down and exterminating the drakons that are a threat would more than likely upset the ones who were neutral or apathetic to human activities and they'd eventually try to avenge their drakonian brethren. Very few would probably go into hiding peacefully. If you committed yourself to destroying only the ones that were a clear threat, you'd have to be prepared to deal with all of them.[/QB]

Am I the only lurker on this otherwise interesting debate who is increasingly unsettled by Savage Ed? This position is truly untenable -- In essence, he posits that dislikability of many members of a race (disobedient, lack of empathy, difficult to bargain with) justifies mass slaughter. He explicitly states that it is *because* of these characteristics that their personalities and intelligences (and thus, lives) are disposable.

You've moved away from flirtation with slavery, and are now dancing with genocide.

Edit: typo.

[Andraste]

No wanderer, you are not the only person disturbed with others disregard for intelligent life.

[Kelandon]

Drakons do pose a different — and interesting — dilemma: what do you do with a group of sentient beings of whom a sizable number (the majority? a large majority, even?) are powerful, dangerous, and violent to the point that they represent a threat to society?

 

Killing all of them seems too extreme, because some of them may not be a threat individually. Leaving them alone isn't an option, because they'll go on rampages and kill people. Targeting individuals is hard, because so many of them are problems.

[Dikiyoba]

I suppose you would just have to make peace with the ones that are capable and willing to be peaceful, and then start the long, slow, messy process of hunting down the ones that cause problems.

 

It's probable that fewer drakons would be dangerous if they were treated as equals to Shapers and not as banned creations, but that would be difficult to convince them of (and even harder to maintain once troublesome drakons started getting hunted down). Of course, that's not taking the possible treachery and arrogant attitude of some Shapers towards drakons into account.

 

Dikiyoba.

[Suspicious Vlish]

Kelandanon:

Quote:

Killing all of them seems too extreme, because some of them may not be a threat individually. Leaving them alone isn't an option, because they'll go on rampages and kill people.

Since when does a Drakkon go on a 'rampage'?

[Micawber]

Quote:

Originally written by Kelandon:
Drakons do pose a [...] dilemma: what do you do with a group [who] are powerful, dangerous, and violent to the point that they represent a threat to society? [...] Killing all of them seems too extreme.
(edited for length)

A dilemma indeed. Now where have I seen this before? Guantanamo, perhaps?

Edit: Waylander: what do you call GF3, if not a Drakon rampage?

[Hamilton G. Phantamos]

Quote:

Originally written by wary wanderer:

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:

I also came to a realization earlier. The main reason most drakon personalities and intelligences are disposable is because they lack obediance, empathy, and are highly morally apathetic. Combine that with the fact that they are extremely hardy, long lived, and have a tendency to exhale searing blasts of heat and their inherent danger becomes readily apparent. Due to their pride, it's almost impossible to make a deal with one, and even if one is reached it's slanted heavily in favor of what the drakon thinks would be appropiate. Most of their memories would be of killing, maiming, eating, and terrorizing humans, meaning you wouldn't want to reshape a creature with the same personality. However, hunting down and exterminating the drakons that are a threat would more than likely upset the ones who were neutral or apathetic to human activities and they'd eventually try to avenge their drakonian brethren. Very few would probably go into hiding peacefully. If you committed yourself to destroying only the ones that were a clear threat, you'd have to be prepared to deal with all of them.

Am I the only lurker on this otherwise interesting debate who is increasingly unsettled by Savage Ed? This position is truly untenable -- In essence, he posits that dislikability of many members of a race (disobedient, lack of empathy, difficult to bargain with) justifies mass slaughter. He explicitly states that it is *because* of these characteristics that their personalities and intelligences (and thus, lives) are disposable.

You've moved away from flirtation with slavery, and are now dancing with genocide.

Edit: typo.[/QB]

If you aren't going to thoroughly read everything I say, I'd prefer you didn't comment on what you think I said. Unless you can give a compelling argument why the creator of a being is obligated to see their own creation as equal to them, I still reject the notion that entities created through human invention are inherently free of human beings.

[Kelandon]

I would think that the onus is on you to explain why a thinking, feeling being should be completely at someone else's disposal, creation or no.

 

This is, by the way, analogous to another question: if there is a god like the Christian God, and if He did create us, are we by the very act of creation therefore obligated to serve Him, or must there be some other justification in addition? Ultimately, the answer to that question, I feel, is that there would have to be an additional reason, namely that God's commands are inherently good, since gratitude for creation (or whatever) is not by itself sufficient to make us slaves.

[Lilith]

Aw, dammit, Kel. Didja have to release the elephant?

[Suspicious Vlish]

Mica:

Quote:

Edit: Waylander: what do you call GF3, if not a Drakon rampage?

1. I wouldn't call a resistance effort a 'rampage', exactly.

 

2. The Drakon's aren't really doing the 'rampaging'. They are just pulling the strings.

 

The question here is why Drakon's should be restrained (from a neutral perspective, of course).

They are powerful. So what?

They are dangerous. So what?

They have a tendency to react to violence with violence. So what?

[Micawber]

They're not just reacting - they're actively seeking violence. How was the academy of Greenwood Isle a threat to them? The people of Terrestria (we are told "the whole of Terrestria is in flames") weren't violent towards drakons, they never even knew they existed.

 

As for point 2, sending others to rampage on one's behalf does not exonerate one from a charge of murder.