Free Will

[OddHat]

Re: Free Will

 

I think the problem here is that it relies on a specific build of the power, which we haven't seen because the OP didn't provide it. And in any case I don't really think it's relevant to the discussion. The question wasn't, "How to build the power," but rather, "How would you react to this circumstance"? For all your character would know, it might actually do all that.

 

 

 

I agree, but I wasn't touching on any of those issues. Just the permanency issue.

 

For my own part, I'm ambivalent about the issue. I guess it depends on the exact effect. If we're talking about an artificial euphoria, then I would certainly be opposed to it. But if we're talking about something less intrusive, say, merely compelling people to find non-violent resolutions in situations where they might otherwise resort to violence - I'd have a mucher harder time mustering up opposition. For whatever reason, when I read the OP, I assumed it was the latter, but upon rereading it, I could see the former being the case as well.

 

The OP cites a story arc in the 4th season of the Angel TV series where an artificial, temporary euphoria is used to pacify LA with the plan eventually being the pacification of Earth, mixed with the DC President Luthor plot line. My response was based on that. And the build is relevant; global temporary mind control is not in the same class as the kind of well established, well integrated into human experience speech making of a Gadhi or MLK.

 

That said, magicaly forcing people to seek non-violent methods of conflict resolution is also an idea I have no trouble opposing.

[Gary]

Re: Free Will

 

If you really think about it, doesn't this describe every single RPG campaign that has ever existed?

 

Every character, every NPC, every event, everything is under the control of the GM and PCs. Nobody has free will, but everyone has the illusion of freewill. And the universe is vulnerable to stagnation or destruction if the GM and players get bored of it.

 

Now if the characters found out they were merely puppets on a string, wouldn't they want to eliminate their puppeteers if they could?

[OddHat]

Re: Free Will

 

Is your PC/Hero prepared to kill the mentalist responsible for this global mind game? Why or why not?

 

Style would be able to remove the mentalist's powers eventually without killing him, unless the Mentalist had a lot of hardened Power Def. At that point, if he had no other way to free the world, Style would kill the mentalist.

 

Flesh Gordon would have trouble understanding the problem. After it had been carefully explained to him, he'd beat up the mentalist, and by pure luck the mentalist would end up turning his power off by accident while trying to fry Flesh's mind. FLesh would not kill the mentalist unless there was no other possible option.

 

 

And as our Nemesis will point out (bearing in mind the campaign setting which is far more malevelont to mutants than the cinematic X-men universe, for example), shutting the mental power off cold leaves billions of humans and millions of mutants staring at each other over cups of latte at Starbucks. Warring countries, whose soldiers are at the moment enjoying a game of soccer, suddenly lose that drive to not kill one another, and now they're right next to one another. The mind game is already in place, peace reigns - what about the fallout of shutting off that mind game cold? How many people will die as a result? Obviously it's not the hero's fault this all happened (well, except for handing the mentalist over to his enemy in the first place, not knowing what the enemy's plans were), but how much responsibility does he bear for the deaths that will ensue if the power is shut off?

 

Style would regret the deaths, but he'd see them as the lesser evil. Human and Mutant kind are doomed if he doesn't act; at least this way, the long term damage would be less severe. He would try to take what precautions he could to stop this from leading to world wide Nuclear plant meltdowns and similar, and he'd look for ways to make the transition back as painless as possible. If the deck is stacked so that the world ends no matter what if the mind controller gets taken down, Style might still take him down in the hopes that the survivors will be able to rebuild.

 

Flesh Gordon would trust to luck to get him and the world through. He might be wrong.

[Lamrok]

Re: Free Will

 

If you really think about it, doesn't this describe every single RPG campaign that has ever existed?

 

Every character, every NPC, every event, everything is under the control of the GM and PCs. Nobody has free will, but everyone has the illusion of freewill. And the universe is vulnerable to stagnation or destruction if the GM and players get bored of it.

 

Now if the characters found out they were merely puppets on a string, wouldn't they want to eliminate their puppeteers if they could?

 

In one subplot in Zornwil's game, my character is searching for those puppet masters.

[OddHat]

Re: Free Will

 

If you really think about it, doesn't this describe every single RPG campaign that has ever existed?

 

Every character, every NPC, every event, everything is under the control of the GM and PCs. Nobody has free will, but everyone has the illusion of freewill. And the universe is vulnerable to stagnation or destruction if the GM and players get bored of it.

 

Now if the characters found out they were merely puppets on a string, wouldn't they want to eliminate their puppeteers if they could?

 

Now there's a campaign idea. Run a dozen sessions, save up $2000 or so, and hire a group of student-actors to dress in the PCs costumes and storm the room where you're playing near the end of the last game session. Your players will never forget.

[Spiral]

Re: Free Will

 

My characters would have mixed thoughts on this matter I am thinking Ms Mystic would try to reason with the mentalist and try to change his opinion to make sure Earth and it’s people is keep safe that is her major goal. If all else fails she would try to slowly control the mentalist herself before trying to kill him out right. Then she would slowly give everyone their free will back or go insane and keep control herself.

Savage would kill the guy and not worry about any after effects. That is the type of guy he is.

Taylor would kill the guy and feel a lot of regret about what happens afterward.

Raven would try to find a solution before killing him. He would feel a great remorse over having to kill a living creature but believes that all beings has a purpose and should be free to fulfill their destiny.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Free Will

 

For the sake of brevity in the OP, I didn't include a lot of details, particularly the game mechanics as our campaign rests heavily on the role play and very little on the mechanics (at least if you're the GM; PCs are bound hard and fast by the rules for the most part).

 

Great arguments, one and all, and I appreciate them. Now let me muck it up some more:

 

Is your PC/Hero prepared to kill the mentalist responsible for this global mind game? Why or why not?

 

If said mentalist was originally in a mutant prison, it's logical to assume that some means exists to restrain or neutralize his powers without having to kill him.

 

 

And as our Nemesis will point out (bearing in mind the campaign setting which is far more malevelont to mutants than the cinematic X-men universe' date=' for example), shutting the mental power off cold leaves billions of humans and millions of mutants staring at each other over cups of latte at Starbucks. Warring countries, whose soldiers are at the moment enjoying a game of soccer, suddenly lose that drive to not kill one another, and now they're right next to one another. The mind game is already in place, peace reigns - what about the fallout of shutting off that mind game cold? How many people will die as a result? Obviously it's not the hero's fault this all happened (well, except for handing the mentalist over to his enemy in the first place, not knowing what the enemy's plans were), but how much responsibility does he bear for the deaths that will ensue if the power is shut off?[/quote']

 

And how will this be different from the day the mentalist ultimately dies, or someone succeeds in killing him? Or even worse, someone less benevolent than the Nemesis rests control of this mentalist away from him, and uses him for less noble purposes? Delaying dealing with this only postpones the inevitable chaos, which for the reasons that others have eloquently outlined on this thread, will probably be even worse for being deferred.

 

If conflicts do result when control is dropped, though, it will be because the parties involved have chosen to fight. Free will can't be applied selectively; the right to choose means that sometimes people will make choices that we think are wrong. If you believe in free will you have to accept this painful reality.

 

That said, I do believe that the PC hero would bear responsibility for this outcome, and might feel that keenly. Would some sort of atonement be appropriate, and if so, what would be proportionate? I'd have to think about that.

 

One last point: I'm reminded of an NPC superhero I created for one of my past campaigns, Al-Mahdi, who claimed to be the hero from Arab folklore predicted to arise to defend Islam from threats both external and internal. I know exactly how he would respond to the arguments of the Nemesis: "Free will was given to Man by decree of God. Do you claim to be greater than God, that you have the right to take it away?"

[FTJoshua]

Re: Free Will

 

If you really think about it, doesn't this describe every single RPG campaign that has ever existed?

 

Every character, every NPC, every event, everything is under the control of the GM and PCs. Nobody has free will, but everyone has the illusion of freewill. And the universe is vulnerable to stagnation or destruction if the GM and players get bored of it.

 

Now if the characters found out they were merely puppets on a string, wouldn't they want to eliminate their puppeteers if they could?

 

...we actually did sorta play this out once. Sorry it's off topic, but: We played one adventure wherein all the PCs were shown a room filled with guys who just so happened to look exactly like the players. They were told these were their Makers. That they were, as you said, puppets. These are the men, the PCs were told, who are responsible for every agony the PC's every felt, all the hurt, all the pain, all the blood. And it could end right here if the PC's wished. Or they could return to their own world and just see. The PCs chose to go back without taking a swing, and each individually decided that, puppets or not, they had a job to do, and they were going to do it.

 

It was weird - but in the end pretty cool. I thought so, anyway. Mileage would vary wildly I'd guess.

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Free Will

 

All my characters are blending together in my head, because it's been so long since I've played any superheroic campaigns. So I'll answer in general:

 

Any character I play would be most likely to try to talk the mentalist into easing off his control, gradually allowing people to become themselves again. She'd appeal to his better nature, explain that she understands he thinks it's for the good of the world, and explain why it's really not. If that didn't work, she'd go for finding something to supress his powers, rather than kill him outright. Then she'd go for knocking some sense into him. Killing would be a last resort.

[Mentor]

Re: Free Will

 

I happen to play a Mentalist now and that question comes up often. Prodigy does not kill humans. Ever. Period. If someone commits or seriously threatens an act heinous enough for supers to act with extreme prejudice, suspending or eliminating that person's free will, temporarily or permanently is something he will do. Some players and some PCs find this more horrifying than killing. OTOH, he would never have the arrogance to believe he knew what would be best for everyone, and he lack the power anyway.

(Unlike his mentor, Mentor, who has the power but also lacks the arrogance.)

[Lucius]

Re: Free Will

 

 

You'd need to have the transform cover every generation forever,

 

No. If part of the original transformation includes either changing the species' genetic make-up to eliminate violent tendencies, and/or changing their psychosocial make-up so that they raise their children in such a way that the children are pacifists who will raise THEIR children to be pacifists, ad-infinitum, then you have at the very least a very long term-situation. Perhaps not permanent, but it would only change with genetic and/or cultural drift - and with billions of Human minds at work on the problem, there would probably be some non-violent means found to prevent deviants, when they do arise, from breeding and/or raising children. Because people would presumably still have all the old records, from books to videos to preserved artifacts and places like the Nazi death camps, telling and showing them just how truly horrible a world with violence in it is, and they'd be very motivated to preserve their world from it.

 

and in a comic book universe you'd have the problem of aliens and extra dimensional entities who hadn't been covered. You'd also have to hope that those who were immune didn't out breed those who weren't.

 

In just about any universe, there would be the possibility of the unexpected. As for the question of immunity, partly it depends on how many such exist to begin with. But in a world of pacifists, if you are known to be capable of violence, how many people do you think would be willing to sleep with you, let alone pair up with you to raise a family?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Mind Control, Palindromedary Class of Minds

[OddHat]

Re: Free Will

 

No. If part of the original transformation includes either changing the species' genetic make-up to eliminate violent tendencies' date='[/quote']

 

That would fall under changing every generation forever, and would work in a way dissimilar to the example given by the OP.

 

and/or changing their psychosocial make-up so that they raise their children in such a way that the children are pacifists who will raise THEIR children to be pacifists, ad-infinitum, then you have at the very least a very long term-situation.

 

Again not the situation described by the OP.

 

In just about any universe, there would be the possibility of the unexpected.

 

Yes. More reason then not to massively interfere with the survival tool kit of the species.

 

But in a world of pacifists, if you are known to be capable of violence, how many people do you think would be willing to sleep with you, let alone pair up with you to raise a family?

 

In a world of pacifists, the non pacifists can breed by hiding their nature, rape, breeding with one-another, or some combination, including killing off the pacifist males and taking the women.

[Ranxerox]

Re: Free Will

 

Hmmm. So most of you believe that the right of a person to choose to kill is more important than the right of the victim to live (and therefore get to make any choices at all thereafter).

 

Personally, if I were a vastly powereful mentalist, I can think of quite a few conflicts that I would put an end to before the end of immediately; and if I had enough power I might simply choose to end them all. This would no doubt involve restricting peoples free will some, but it would still leave them with an infinite amount of choices still available to them. It would just be an infiniting made ever so slightly smaller by loss of the choices to murder rape and torture.

 

Were their people that were immune to my mental powers and they chose to kill me, I would consider it well worth the trade if I could provide the world one day where no one is murder, raped or subjected to torture.

 

However, of course the original question wasn't what I would do with such powe,r but what I would do if another person had it and was asking for my protection while they enforce the peace. Well, if they weren't otherwise abusing their power, then I would probably be willing to protect them. Though I wouldn't necessarily be willing to protect them to the point of hunting down and killing their enemies.

[薔薇語]

Re: Free Will

 

Were their people that were immune to my mental powers and they chose to kill me, I would consider it well worth the trade if I could provide the world one day where no one is murder, raped or subjected to torture.

 

However, of course the original question wasn't what I would do with such powe,r but what I would do if another person had it and was asking for my protection while they enforce the peace. Well, if they weren't otherwise abusing their power, then I would probably be willing to protect them. Though I wouldn't necessarily be willing to protect them to the point of hunting down and killing their enemies.

 

 

I have to agree. In the end If I didn't percieve any Meglomaniac desires I would allow him to exist. As far as the freedom of choice that people lose. It is the same freedom that each and everyone one of us gave up in our "social contract." We lose the rights to do certain activities while we exist in society and the mentalist is just ensuring that we give them up.

 

If all he does is remove the "desire/will" to hate your fellow man, what is the harm. We may Define ourselve (as people or a society) in our struggle but that doesn't mean if we lose the will to hate we lose ourselves. We will always have struggles and will always continue to be tested in other ways.

 

To answer another early post about population control. So what we no longer have any true natural preditors(since man is man's worste enemy). If we start working together and not trying to beat eachother, we could support many times the population we do now.

 

Also to answer earlier thoughts about how if the next generation that has always lived in this safty net has to be exposed to the true nature of man how can they possibly servive? Why would they have to worry. They may have the ability to hate but that doesn't mean they will. The next generation very well might get along with its fellow man. I mean if I wasn't raised to hate a person based on there Race why would I? People that arn't brought up to hate, just wont hate.

 

And the Last thought to address. If we remove the will to hate do we stop building weapons? NO. The man purpose of a weapon is to protect yourself, and help people. We may no longer need to Kill people but that deosn't mean we wont design a Anti-Matter Bomb to take out that oncoming Asteroid or enemy fleet. Just becuase there is no need for War, doesn't mean we have no need for weapons!

 

So I know I strayed But as the Original post asked, "would I kill a few to ensure safty of all?" No.

 

Now "Would I defend 'He who brings peace to man?" Yes

 

I may fear his power being used for evil, but if I don't think it is, then I am going to defend him with every fiber in my being. "Hail Be the Savior of Man":hail:

 

La Rose

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Free Will

 

No. If part of the original transformation includes either changing the species' genetic make-up to eliminate violent tendencies, and/or changing their psychosocial make-up so that they raise their children in such a way that the children are pacifists who will raise THEIR children to be pacifists, ad-infinitum, then you have at the very least a very long term-situation. Perhaps not permanent, but it would only change with genetic and/or cultural drift - and with billions of Human minds at work on the problem, there would probably be some non-violent means found to prevent deviants, when they do arise, from breeding and/or raising children. Because people would presumably still have all the old records, from books to videos to preserved artifacts and places like the Nazi death camps, telling and showing them just how truly horrible a world with violence in it is, and they'd be very motivated to preserve their world from it.

 

 

 

In just about any universe, there would be the possibility of the unexpected. As for the question of immunity, partly it depends on how many such exist to begin with. But in a world of pacifists, if you are known to be capable of violence, how many people do you think would be willing to sleep with you, let alone pair up with you to raise a family?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Mind Control, Palindromedary Class of Minds

A while ago, a friend told me about a story, set in space, that begins with aliens encountering a pacifist human ship. Humans have done away with war, and are now exploring space. Their ship has no weapons. Seeing it as a sitting duck, the aliens attack.

 

And, with most of the crew knocked out, the ship's cook gets into the command center, reroutes all the power to the mapping lasers, and blows the alien ship out of the sky.

 

And the moral of the story is that humans didn't do away with war because they were a peaceful people now, but because they were so very good at it.

 

Wish I remembered the name of the book.

[OddHat]

Re: Free Will

 

Hmmm. So most of you believe that the right of a person to choose to kill is more important than the right of the victim to live (and therefore get to make any choices at all thereafter).

 

For myself, I generally believe that human culture and the human mind are too complex to risk massive, sudden changes imposed from the outside, and that such changes will have unforseen consquences.

 

The scenario outlined by the original poster includes a seemingly sincere "savoir" with a history as your character's nemesis. His first action after taking power is to order the deaths of those he does not control, and not because they are actively threatenning him. He is already abusing his new power by ordering those deaths. I can't see any of my characters trusting him for a minute.

[MilkmanDan]

Re: Free Will

 

A while ago, a friend told me about a story, set in space, that begins with aliens encountering a pacifist human ship. Humans have done away with war, and are now exploring space. Their ship has no weapons. Seeing it as a sitting duck, the aliens attack.

 

And, with most of the crew knocked out, the ship's cook gets into the command center, reroutes all the power to the mapping lasers, and blows the alien ship out of the sky.

 

And the moral of the story is that humans didn't do away with war because they were a peaceful people now, but because they were so very good at it.

 

Wish I remembered the name of the book.

 

It's a Larry Niven book, think it was a novella in The Man-Kzin Wars (he was the guy who wrote the Ringworld series, wonder if he got any royalties from Halo). The Kzin are a fierce, warriorlike cat people who basically on paper are vicious combatants, but every time they fight humans they get slaughtered. IIRC, in that novella humans dispensed with violence years before, and are on a peaceful exploration and get attacked. They basically use a navigation mirror of some sort to focus a nearby star's rays and destroy the attacking vessel, and the humans' basic reaction is "where the heck did we learn to do that".

[MilkmanDan]

Re: Free Will

 

Hmmm. So most of you believe that the right of a person to choose to kill is more important than the right of the victim to live (and therefore get to make any choices at all thereafter).

 

No, I believe that the right to choose in and of itself is more important than the right of a potential victim to live.

 

Personally, if I were a vastly powereful mentalist, I can think of quite a few conflicts that I would put an end to before the end of immediately; and if I had enough power I might simply choose to end them all. This would no doubt involve restricting peoples free will some, but it would still leave them with an infinite amount of choices still available to them. It would just be an infiniting made ever so slightly smaller by loss of the choices to murder rape and torture.

 

Were their people that were immune to my mental powers and they chose to kill me, I would consider it well worth the trade if I could provide the world one day where no one is murder, raped or subjected to torture.

 

However, of course the original question wasn't what I would do with such powe,r but what I would do if another person had it and was asking for my protection while they enforce the peace. Well, if they weren't otherwise abusing their power, then I would probably be willing to protect them. Though I wouldn't necessarily be willing to protect them to the point of hunting down and killing their enemies.

 

You realize, of course, that by doing this you're effectively ceasing any sort of human development. You can't have change without unhappiness, because there's no reason to change. Furthermore, if it wasn't for violence, war, and the fear of being killed, we'd still be banging rocks together. Every significant human technological development I can think of comes in some way from fear of war or killing each other. Every one. The internet? An attempt to find a stable communications network that could survive nuclear war. The interstate highway system was partially designed to have a quick way to move military forces around in case of war. Penicillin grew out of a need to keep soldiers alive. Radio and television grew out of military technologies. Even the modern steam engine came into existence when James Watt saw cannons being made and realized the manufacturing method could be used to make a better cylinder for processing the steam.

 

If you get rid of the threat of violence, NOTHING will ever be innovated again. NOTHING. There's no need to, if everybody's happy. Also, you're also more or less enforcing the social order exactly as it is today. People who have almost nothing? They're happy with it. Sure, they may wind up having enough food to sustain life, but they're not going to scrabble for a better existence because they're made content. You've also killed off sports, as their competive nature doesn't fit the new world order. No football, because you can't have a safety leveling a receiver who goes up for the ball. Too violent. No baseball--sliding into base with spikes up can't happen, and you sure can't flatten the catcher going for home. No basketball, as dunking in someone's face is too aggressive.

 

Seriously, if you think this is a good idea in any way, sit down and read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. It's less than 200 pages and is an entertaining and quick read (this thread actually inspired me to re-read it yet again last weekend), and it's this world exactly. In that world, people are bred to be happy, carefully controlled via uber-behaviorism to love their lot in life no matter what. Everyone is always completely happy and it is complete and utter hell on Earth. There's no joy, no passion, and no art, because you can't have those without unhappiness. It's horrific.

 

"You can't make flivvers without steel–and you can't make tragedies without social instability. The world's stable now. People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can't get. They're well off; they're safe; they're never ill; they're not afraid of death; they're blissfully ignorant of passion and old age; they're plagued with no mothers or fathers; they've got no wives, or children, or lovers to feel strongly about; they're so conditioned that they practically can't help behaving as they ought to behave. And if anything should go wrong, there's soma."

 

The mentalist in this case is committing an absolutely unforgiveable crime and needs to die. Now.

[David Johnston]

Re: Free Will

 

You realize, of course, that by doing this you're effectively ceasing any sort of human development. You can't have change without unhappiness, because there's no reason to change.

 

There are other reasons for unhappiness than warfare.

Furthermore, if it wasn't for violence, war, and the fear of being killed, we'd still be banging rocks together. Every significant human technological development I can think of comes in some way from fear of war or killing each other.

 

Hey! It's one of the Shadows from Babylon 5

Every one. The internet? An attempt to find a stable communications network that could survive nuclear war.

 

But distributed computer bulletin boards arose without reference to DARPA. Without the Internet, FIDO would have just risen to control all, and FIDO was created as a method for firemen to exchange information.

The interstate highway system was partially designed to have a quick way to move military forces around in case of war.

But not entirely.

 

Penicillin grew out of a need to keep soldiers alive.

 

No, it didn't. While the United States did develop a method for producing penicillin in job lots out of that need, Penicillin itself was developed in peacetime for peaceful reasons and eventually, probably during the next big epidemic some government or governments would have invested the resources for that program.

 

Radio and television grew out of military technologies.

 

No, they didn't. The first practical application of radio was for ship communications in case of a sea disaster. Ocean liners had it before any military first implemented an application . Radio arose out of telegraphy and the first practical application of telegraphy was to transmit political news from one city to another. The telegraph networks weren't built by the military in most places. They were built by businessmen looking to make a profit from improved communication.

 

 

If you get rid of the threat of violence, NOTHING will ever be innovated again. NOTHING. There's no need to, if everybody's happy.

 

Needless to say, just as I say that non-violent doesn't mean benevolent, I also say non-violent doesn't mean "happy". Oh...and of course "happy" doesn't mean you won't commit violence. It means you'll do it cheerfully.

[Kenn]

Re: Free Will

 

I once a character that was worried about his free will. Eventually he changed from his speedo trunks that kept slipping and letting the goods out to long pants.

[Ranxerox]

Re: Free Will

 

For myself, I generally believe that human culture and the human mind are too complex to risk massive, sudden changes imposed from the outside, and that such changes will have unforseen consquences.

 

The scenario outlined by the original poster includes a seemingly sincere "savoir" with a history as your character's nemesis. His first action after taking power is to order the deaths of those he does not control, and not because they are actively threatenning him. He is already abusing his new power by ordering those deaths. I can't see any of my characters trusting him for a minute.

 

You are right that should have paid more attention to specific scenario instead of focusing so much on on the later debate about the value of free will. According to the scenario

His nemesis is now President (*cough*rippedofffromsupermancomic*cough*), but appears to be sincere in his desire for a world in which violence has been eradicated.

Now if the nemesis is basically Lex Luthor, you are right that he should not be trusted for a minute. However, if the now President is the rip off from Superman comic but the villian isn't Lex Luthor but instead someone more credible taking a noble course, then it might be worthwhile to protect him if my character can dissuade him from exterminating his ememies.

[OddHat]

Re: Free Will

 

Now if the nemesis is basically Lex Luthor, you are right that he should not be trusted for a minute. However, if the now President is the rip off from Superman comic but the villian isn't Lex Luthor but instead someone more credible taking a noble course, then it might be worthwhile to protect him if my character can dissuade him from exterminating his ememies.

 

Fair enough; if he were not a known villain, and he were not asking to have his enemies killed off, my characters could better understand choosing to support him.

 

Most still wouldn't support him, but they would also be much more restrained in their attempt to depose him.

[Ranxerox]

Re: Free Will

 

No, I believe that the right to choose in and of itself is more important than the right of a potential victim to live.

 

 

You realize, of course, that by doing this you're effectively ceasing any sort of human development. You can't have change without unhappiness, because there's no reason to change.

 

I did not read as much into the statement

Everyone's happy.

as you did.

 

Since it is said in passing and not mentioned again while the absence of war and killing was mention several times, I took the statement about happiness as being relative to the bad old days and not some Brave New World Soma-like bliss.

 

As for your arguement about that war/threat-of-war is responsible for all progress, David Johnston does a admirable job countering it. The only thing that I wish to add is that the nation of Japan which went a half century without a standing army and the knowledge that the U.S. would protect it were it attacked transformed itself from a backwards nation to argueably the most technologically advanced country on the planet. So how does that fit into you theory about all progress being preparation or responce to war?

[Lucius]

Re: Free Will

 

 

Yes. More reason then not to massively interfere with the survival tool kit of the species.

 

.

 

Well put (I think I was basically getting at the idea, but not clearly) and one of the more pertinent observations made so far.

 

Edit: Was going to rep you in fact, but apparently I need to "spread it around."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary observes a sign of the times: Right Lane Ends. Wrong Lane Goes on and on.

[Lucius]

Re: Free Will

 

A while ago, a friend told me about a story, set in space, that begins with aliens encountering a pacifist human ship. Humans have done away with war, and are now exploring space. Their ship has no weapons. Seeing it as a sitting duck, the aliens attack.

 

And, with most of the crew knocked out, the ship's cook gets into the command center, reroutes all the power to the mapping lasers, and blows the alien ship out of the sky.

 

And the moral of the story is that humans didn't do away with war because they were a peaceful people now, but because they were so very good at it.

 

Wish I remembered the name of the book.

 

It was by Larry Niven, and I read it reprinted in the first of the Man-Kzin Wars series.

 

The extraordinary thing of course is that he makes it so believable; you can actually buy into a Human who has never had a violent thought before in his life, figuring out on the spur of the moment how to use the communications laser to destroy the alien ship.

 

The irony of the story is that the Kzin had a telepath who scanned the Humans and reported that they had no weapons. In fact, their minds didn't even hold the CONCEPT of weapon. But once they needed a weapon, one of them figured out how to use a tool destructively.

 

After the first encounter of course, the Human race has to figure out how, after three centuries of peace, to become warriors again - very quickly.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary quotes "The reason Man decided to study war no more was that they were already so very good at it."