Keeping the Peace---SMACX AI Growth 1.50

[bvanevery]

Man, don't you love being a slimy, greasy manipulator?

Actually if I'm going to play evil, per my sidebar I'm going to throw people into the tanks.  And I don't mean the kind you drive!

The meditation above, although interesting, and surely in character for Lal to contemplate, is also foolish.  Evil isn't about your experience once you are dead.  Evil is about depriving others of the actions of their life.  This is why slavery is evil.  Torture is evil because it puts people in extreme stress and damages their bodies.  People willing to inflict torture are also usually willing to end it with death.  They extract from their captives, whatever they wish to take from others.  This taking is also evil.

Good and evil are actually absolute.  We just live in societies that have engaged in a lot of circuitous philosophical questionings about biological stuff that's actually quite obvious.  Go out on the street and bash a random passerby in the head with a hammer.  See if you are not incarcerated and maybe even executed as evil.

See if you are not shot dead for attempting to commit evil.

[pcangler]

Ooooh, I hate to dilute this thread with something unrelated, but I'm going to respond to that comment about the nature of evil. Because although I posted the Disputations because it's interesting, I also did so because I agree with them (broadly).

Evil isn't about your experience once you are dead.  Evil is about depriving others of the actions of their life.

I'm not entirely sure what this means, but I think you're trying to say that dying can be an evil because evil "isn't about your experience once you are dead", but rather, it's about "depriving others of the actions of their life".  In other words, you're bringing up the second part of the student's question: it may be true that death itself isn't an evil, but isn't having lose the actions of life evil? Isn't facing death or being obliged to die an evil?

Cicero addresses this too, although in shorter format than his position on death itself. He says that since there is no evil in death, to be obliged to die cannot include evil; the approach of no evil, where there is no existence, cannot be evil. Presumably, you would respond by pointing out when someone dies they can no longer experience the joys of life. To put it another way, death doesn't include any suffering, but it also doesn't include any happiness. In my view, this response unfairly ignores Cicero's logic. If there is no sensation after death, then one cannot experience disappointment or boredom. They also cannot experience (in a sense of having no qualia) a lack of pleasure, just as a rock cannot experience a lack of pleasure; which is to say, it cannot experience anything.

Before one is born, they cannot experience pleasure. Yet it seems intuitively true (to me at least) that we do not see not having been born as an evil. If we did, then wouldn't we criticize parents who only have one or two children but can afford to have more? The only difference between this case and death is timing. But what if we do it the other way? The ability to resurrect people, for example, does not morally oblige us to resurrect all or any of the dead, so that they may once again experience life. They don't exist as a mind, so we should be content with leaving them as they are.

But what about the sensations of people as they die, the sadness and suffering that come along with realizing that your worldly possessions are gone? Cicero addressed this as well. According to Cicero, our grieving for dead loved ones (and therefore the sense that the mere approach of death is evil) are results of "apprehensions that he whom we loved is deprived of all the advantages of life, and is sensible of his loss". It's obviously true that a dead person is no longer able to have any of the advantages of life. However, it is also true (I think you would agree, bvanevery, because you didn't criticize this claim by Cicero) that dead people are not aware of this loss. Clearly, the loss of both sensibility and worldly advantages are concurrent. In this view slavery, torture, and murder are evil because one is sensible of their loss of worldly advantage; but since a dead person exists as much as a hippocentaur, it matters little that "they" (both the late person and the hippocentaur) no longer have anything. There is no "transition" period in which one loses worldly advantages but did not lose sensibility.

It may be true that these apprehensions, illogical as they are, are themselves an evil. I think Cicero would agree, but these things are not the same as death. This is because removing said apprehensions does not necessarily change the nature of death, nor does changing the nature of death necessarily change these apprehensions. For example, if death in fact led to a paradise, it would not change the evil of such apprehensions, nor would it cast some moral ambiguity on death.

However, maybe I'm misinterpreting your claim. You could be saying that by itself, the loss of worldly advantage is intrinsically evil, regardless of other factors. This one's tough to criticize, because I don't wanna argue about meta-ethics. For now I'll suffice it to say that this view is somewhat incompatible with your next claim, that morality is a type of "biological stuff that's actually quite obvious". If you are indeed making the claim that the loss of worldly advantage is intrinsically evil, then I would point out that the burden of proof is on you. Which psychological or other biological study are you referring to? Which biological fact has led you to this? If it isn't a biological fact, fine--but your next claim is false--and I'll need to see why.

Good and evil are actually absolute.  We just live in societies that have engaged in a lot of circuitous philosophical questionings about biological stuff that's actually quite obvious.  Go out on the street and bash a random passerby in the head with a hammer.  See if you are not incarcerated and maybe even executed as evil.

See if you are not shot dead for attempting to commit evil.

This sounds a lot like the central premise of Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape. In it, he argues that religion or a higher power aren't necessary for absolute morality to exist. This is because he believes that science proves the existence of said absolute morality, specifically because human biology results in a tacit agreement between people as to what is right or wrong. The idea here is that morality is absolute since it boils down to a biological fact, not a metaphysical idea. And biological facts are absolute, therefore so too is morality.

Here's why I disagree with that thesis, as neat as it once appeared to me. Our biological moral instincts only go so far. People disagree about moral issues all the time, and not just because of their beliefs about the physical world, but also their beliefs about morality itself. This is because our basic moral instincts deal with very primitive, general ideas: don't harm others, help other people out, don't deceive people, etc. We evolved in a simple moral environment.

But in the modern day, we have the time and food surplus to grapple with much more complex questions than our biological frameworks equipped us to deal with. We have to apply those general principles and use often limited knowledge to know if something is desirable or undesirable. This is actually very difficult, not obvious. A timely example would be death: is it an evil? We feel bad about other peoples' death. From an evolutionary perspective, this could be because it disadvantages us. But many societies have gone against their biological programming in this respect. These groups, the biggest of which are many world religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism all do not see death as an evil), very often approach death from a positive perspective, seeing the passing of their friends and family as personally regrettable but nonetheless better for the late person.

Another example is a very basic, simple question that people have been almost evenly split on for decades. Is it acceptable to, barring societal effects, kill a man to use his organs to save two people? What about five, or ten? Is killing that man to save one person morally neutral, or evil? I'm sure you've heard this hypothetical. If you've seen it presented to a room of people as I have, then you'd know that there is broad disagreement on this. So where is this "obvious" biological sense of morality? The answer is that it has no idea what to do. Variance in each of our minds and in our logical faculties means that we arrive at wildly different conclusions.

In order for morality to be absolute, it would have to be very commonly shared, enough so that, for example, a society could agree on a specific course of action for moral questions. You gave the example of condemning murderers to make an example of such a situation. But this clearly falls into a biologically simple response: a murder for no good reason. Of course we'd be equipped to punish senseless killing. In order for this logic to apply across the board, though, it would have to be this absolutely clear for all or at least many moral questions. That's far from true. For example, what should we do with a murderer who killed an innocent? Even in your scenario, people will disagree as to whether I, after killing some rando, would be "incarcerated" or "executed as evil". You said it yourself.

The only solution is to detect these biological moral instincts (which are absolute on an individual basis), then use logic to grapple with them and come to conclusions. This practice is called philosophy. Rather than philosophy being a useless task that muddies the waters and confuses people off of their biological intuitions, philosophy is a method of using logic to better satisfy those intuitions. I think that philosophy is a subject that requires doing to understand the value of. I'm sorry, but when I hear somebody refer to moral questions as "quite obvious", I'm inclined to think that they haven't done much philosophy in their time.

To be clear, I agree with the idea that a religion need not be true for morality to exist, because I agree that morality is based on biological facts. However, I don't think this means that morality is absolute, nor that morality is entirely subsumed by biology.

[pcangler]

2103: Miriam seems to be losing. After this screenshot was taken she lost a colony pod too. I call her up and we trade techs. After she has nothing to give me, I give her B2 Industrial Economics another tech (I forget) for free. I received E2 Adaptive Economics and B4 Environmental Economics (!). Now I can build Tree Farms. Time to outbuild my competitors. Miriam also chose to attack Domai, probably because of our Vendetta. Now Domai and H'minee are even more likely to form a Pact, which would allow them to crush Miriam...



2109: Miriam also gave a map of Morgan's territory. Here it is. He's overtaken Aki; he got Monsoon Jungle and spawned on Mount Planet. Lucky [progeny of unmarried parents].





2110: I've been swapping my bases over to military production, in case a war with Aki occurs. Now that I've gotten enough troops (17 laser troops to her 5 and her troops are spread thin), I send my probe team into her territory to steal some tech. Aki calls me up and asks for H'minee's comms. I oblige, then immediately check back with her for maps, which she sells me for the same price as I gave the comms away for. Learned that one from bvanevery.

We can see H'minee's base layout as having two main areas: her HQ region pictured in the first photo, and her secondary area above Miriam. Given Miriam's forces (5 laser troops), I'm surprised H'minee's forces haven't won totally yet. Things aren't looking good for the anti-alien alliance I've formed.



At this point, Morgan's gotten Weather Paradigm and is heavily beating Aki. I'm beginning to see a trifecta of runners-up in myself, Aki, and Domai, versus a powerful rival, Morgan. He hasn't been bothered by anyone yet, so outbuilding his position is going to be tough. However, my labs per turn is the highest.

Stealing from Aki is my new plan. If she declares war she'll screw herself and the truce I'll be obligated to accept will still mean that she can't grow meaningfully, putting her out of the game. I would rather she not, because then I can keep stealing her stuff and maybe even steal Planetary Energy Grid when she does declare war (11 turns in Pi Complex).

If Miriam does go down, then I may just need to make Aki submit completely with a super swift attack, then play defensively against the predicted Domai/H'minee alliance until I can launch an attack on them.

[bvanevery]

If there is no sensation after death,

This is a distraction.  Your non-sensation after death is a non-issue.  At issue, is what you have done to someone's life.  It is not ok to shoot random people on the street in the head!

If I have a house - especially one that I built with my own hands, so that we can get around some of the capitalist property landholding issues - and you come and burn it down on a whim, that is not ok.

If I have a life - especially one that I somewhat enjoy living, and do meaningful things within - and you come and burn me at the stake on a whim, that is not ok.

In both cases, you have taken from me what is mine and not yours.  In the latter case, the taking is also permanent.  You can't give me my life back.  I am dead, and I have nothing more, ever.

This is why we have historically had capital punishment, and the Hammurabic Code.  It's why we still have self-defense laws today.

To bring this back to the game, if Lal were to open this conversation with Santiago, the latter would point out the efficacy of a concealed carry handgun.  If someone tries to seriously hurt you, you kill them.  And you have your 10 year olds carrying, and your girls.

The conversation would go rather differently with Yang.  He'd get as many people killed as suited his goals, all while claiming they're "selfless collective" goals.  Just like Mao Tse-Tung did in real life.

Miriam would flatly reject some of Cicero's basic tenets, like death being nothingness.

These groups, the biggest of which are many world religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism all do not see death as an evil), very often approach death from a positive perspective, seeing the passing of their friends and family as personally regrettable but nonetheless better for the late person.

They're all lying to themselves and their societies as a matter of Terror Management.  Saying that older people will become sick and have diminished quality of life, inevitably leading to death, is a historical convenience.  It will not always be true.

Even now, lifespans in developed countries are longer than they used to be a few generations ago.  This has resulted in noticeable social changes, such as marriage being "until death do us part", not really a proposition that people with another 20 or 30 years to go, really want to live through!  If you were gonna kick the bucket "like in the past" you wouldn't bother to start over with someone else, or face just being alone.  But we have more life to work with now, so people make different decisions about how valuable an extant marriage is, nearing the end of one's life.

In the timespan of the game, you have to face longevity and clinical immortality.  Disease and the infirmity of age, is not a reason for people to die.

Various science fiction stories have taken on the subject of longevity, in the form of societally forced brevity.  The stories are really quite stupid when you put them under a microscope.  Their main value is to make an audience think "gosh, wow" and question their values and assumptions.  Which hold up pretty darned good if you've actually thought about this stuff at great length, before watching a 1 hour Star Trek TNG or Voyager episode on such matters.

I mean, Logan's Run is not good.  It's not supposed to be.

Is it acceptable to, barring societal effects, kill a man to use his organs to save two people?

Nope.  It's not acceptable to lynch a black man to serve the emotional whims of 2 white men either.  Did you have an actual question worth asking here?

What about five, or ten?

How about lynching a black man to serve the whims of an entire Southern town?  They really all wanted to stand around and make those postcards about what they did.  I mean it's important, when you're white, to be able to do such things.  You have to save the white race, from things that 'harm' it.  In this respect, your medical question is exactly the same thing.  Someone 'must' die to 'save' others.

This is Evil.  Capital 'E'.  And it's absolute.

It does not change no matter the scale.  Jews or Tutsis, doesn't matter.

For example, what should we do with a murderer who killed an innocent? Even in your scenario, people will disagree as to whether I, after killing some rando, would be "incarcerated" or "executed as evil". You said it yourself.

This isn't that interesting.  Standards of law, and getting people to agree on whether a given event met a standard of law, are different problems.  We can most certainly execute people who murdered someone innocent, under various circumstances.  Will we?  That depends on a legal process.

I'm sorry, but when I hear somebody refer to moral questions as "quite obvious", I'm inclined to think that they haven't done much philosophy in their time.

A Wing Chun saying:

To the beginner, a punch is just a punch
To the advanced, it is not a punch, it is much more
To the Master, a punch is just a punch

[pcangler]

I believe we many have a misunderstanding. I agree that killing and stealing are evils. However, I don't think death is an evil. This is because murder involves great worldly pain before death, and results in justified suffering after death in the form of mourning. However, death itself, that is, the act of losing consciousness and ceasing to exist as a mind, is not an evil in my view. I don't think that killing is ok. Death is a result of killing, the physical act, that is--and just because one cause of something is evil does not make that thing evil. Could you clarify what you mean to rebut? I'm not justifying murder, ethnic cleansing, or house-burning. I fully agree with everything you say in the first section (after the first quotation). What I don't see is how that proves that death is an evil. Again, I'd appreciate some clarification--because this could be very interesting.

You could (again, I would like some clarification) be implying that killing is bad due to its destruction of a human life. In other words, killing is an evil because it definitionally causes death. If death is a factor that causes killing to be evil, then death must be evil. Is this what you mean?

They're [world religions] all lying to themselves and their societies as a matter of Terror Management.

I don't know if I'd say lying, because I think religious people are sincere. However, after reading that link, I do agree that religious rituals surrounding death are an example of terror management theory. Thanks for introducing me to that idea. I'm an atheist, and I think I've read the same of you. Again, I agree with what you have to say here entirely. But I don't see what religions being false has to do with the point I was trying to make.

I don't believe these religions' claims are true. Indeed, these three are mutually exclusive. Rather, I was using their widespread adherence to challenge the idea that death can be understood as absolutely evil based on a biological fact. If so many people find religious ideas about the afterlife to be intuitive (as religious thinking often surrounds intuitive beliefs), then it's less likely that this contradicts biological wiring. In other words, this supports the idea that our biological moral instincts don't contradict religious thinking in this respect.

You could also be suggesting that to believe that death is not an evil is an example of Terror Management Theory. This may be true. Even if it is, however, it doesn't suggest that death is an evil, even in an inductive way. Children sometimes manage their terror of the dark by attempting to believe that nothing is there. Simply because that belief may be terror management doesn't make it false, I'm sure you'd agree.

Nope.  It's not acceptable to lynch a black man to serve the emotional whims of 2 white men either.  Did you have an actual question worth asking here?

Ouch. I'm surprised by your staunch position here. One can generalize this scenario as follows: you can kill person A to save a number B of people. Most people that I've spoken to will say that the number of people in set B, as it increases, will at some point require us to kill person A. Usually it's at about 10-20 people saved. Some say two is enough; some one. Some even say zero. Personally, I'd put it at one. But that's off topic.

The scenario you laid out would go something like this: you can kill person A to slightly emotionally benefit a number B of people. I haven't ever spoken to anyone about this. But I think most would agree that no number of people in set B justifies the killing of person A. The difference is apparent, so I'm not sure why you chose this comparison, especially because it's racially charged. In the one case, the lives of people are at stake. In the other, people's "emotional whims" are at stake. Of course, you wouldn't say that the value of life is equivalent to emotional whims. So why did you make this comparison?

As for this being an actual question, it isn't my original idea. This was invented by Judith Thomson; it's one of the most hotly debated questions in and out of philosophy circles as a variation of the better known "trolley problem". If you look up "five-organ hypothetical" or "forced organ donation hypothetical" you'll see much debate about this. It isn't as obvious to others as it is to you; this is because it's actually a relatively complex question. Not something to be dismissed by an allusion to 20th-century hate crimes.

In this respect, your medical question is exactly the same thing [as lynching of a single man to satisfy a town].  Someone 'must' die to 'save' others.

This is Evil.  Capital 'E'.  And it's absolute.

It does not change no matter the scale.  Jews or Tutsis, doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter if the answer to the hypothetical is no. My point still stands. Apart from the comparison being inaccurate, the question doesn't imply that someone 'must' die. You can say, no, they don't need to. Which you did. I was using this example dilemma to show disagreement on a very divisive question. If a large number of people disagree strongly with one another on this simple question, then morality probably isn't as simple as an absolute, shared biological fact. Otherwise, agreement would be much more broad. This is what I was trying to say.

Again, it's a variation of the trolley problem. The other variations of that problem are also hotly debated. It isn't so clear.

This isn't that interesting.  Standards of law, and getting people to agree on whether a given event met a standard of law, are different problems.  We can most certainly execute people who murdered someone innocent, under various circumstances.  Will we?  That depends on a legal process.

I looked back and realized that I was unclear on this point. I was trying to point out that different nations and people have different policies on capital punishment's legality. Often, these positions are based in one's personal moral values as well as consideration of physical facts. Again, I was saying that morality can't be boiled down to "biological stuff that's actually quite obvious" if there's such disagreement on a simple idea such as "should society kill?" Again, I'd say morality is closer to "biological, cultural, and social stuff that's really difficult to get right". This can be observed in the differing moral systems between societies and between individuals.

[bvanevery]

The discussion is fine but even I am concerned at this point, that it's completely derailing your AAR.  Consider it all to be grist for the mill of your in-character writings.  What is Lal going to debate with the others?  The faction mix is random so there's no guarantee he particularly has any ideological foil.  I suggested that Santiago's survivalists wouldn't be particularly interested in dying, or excusing dying.

[pcangler]

It's true--finding a convincing political disagreement is going to be tough. I'm thinking maybe a reform v. revolution type thingy with Domai; I can't ideologically justify any PK aggression against Aki bc we haven't gotten to future society choices yet. Morgan and Miriam can be contrived to oppose me, I think.

And I agree that the discussion is derailing the AAR. Let me suggest you make a separate thread if you want. Personally, I don't think we'd get anywhere anyways.

[bvanevery]

Well you could have Lal engage in hand wringing about whether he should make limited war on the Aliens to force peace, for purposes of getting them to become Democratic.  As opposed to exterminating them.  With the reality setting in, later on, that other factions aren't tolerating this agenda and he can't unify humanity so long as the Aliens are around.

We wouldn't get anywhere with a philosophy thread.  I have a history of objecting to philosophical abstractions, very much preferring concrete reasoning with real world examples to provide context.  Many of these philosophical moral dilemmas, are contrivances, where the contrivance itself seeks to authorize limited options.  Using contrivances as a means to authority, doesn't fool me.

[pcangler]

2211: Just after I get done worrying about their ability to hold their own, Miriam loses one of her conquests. Splendid. I'm going to keep on their side for now, but I don't expect them to survive against the Caretakers. Miriam's gonna be the second faction lost.



When Aki called me up last turn, she neglected to mention the probe team dutifully marching into her territory. She also didn't send it home. So I march into Psi Consensus and steal D3 Optical Computers. It's not great on its own, but it does lead to D4 Intellectual Integrity (Knowledge, Universal Translator) and B4 Planetary Economics (Wealth, Planetary Energy Grid). Those two techs also lead to D5 Applied Relativity, which gives Supercollider SP and Industrial Labs (Fusion Labs). So this tech path is designed to give me the upper hand technologically. One thing I've noticed about this mod is that each tech oath "type" seems to be more independent than the base game, so that I'm not forced to collect useless techs. For example, I don't need to waste time on getting more conquer techs right now. There's this nice builder path, with a lot of population and tech facilities and projects on it. It also has Hunter-Seeker and the holy SUPPLY CRAWLER. In this mod Industrial Automation is tier 6 and although I can't argue with that design choice, it's seriously harmed my development.

I know I said I'd be going on that path, but I take a minimal digression to go for Centauri Genetics. It includes Human Genome Project, something that will hopefully help to dope my citizens in the big midgame popboom I'm planning.

Unfortunately, my probe team dies.



Okay, so I was expecting Aki to just take the theft. In my experience an AI that thinks you're more powerful than them just lets you off with a warning. Maybe it's because I'm already "at war" with two other opponents, but she decides that now is a great time to start another one with me. So be it. I've got about 25 laser troops to her four. And they've been preparing for this eventuality.



2212: Divinity Base falls only a turn later. Things are looking really bad for the Believers, even if the AI may have a hard time finishing her off.



2215: Only four turns later, she's lost her HQ; her defenses crumbled very easily because she only had one or two synth troops in each base. I have now stolen the Virtual World and the Planetary Datalinks. I am going to see what I can do to allow her to complete the Planetary Energy Grid in Pi Complex before I scare her away from it.

2216: She's one turn away from completing it. I take the rest of her immediately available bases and prepare an assault on Pi Complex. I also get E3 Centauri Genetics and use the four Alien Artifacts I've accumulated at U.N. Headquarters to rush Human Genome Project, shoving 200 credits into it for good measure. Next it's D4 Intellectual Integrity.



2217: Sadly, she switched production to a Laser Squad. Now Morgan's gonna get that SP. So I take Pi Complex and she calls me up. Previously, I'd been not answering her calls for Truce. My logic was that, since I am the only legitimate authority on Planet, I deserve access to her tech. So she is definitely too aggressive to be left with any significant amount of power. Now, though, I took all of her quickly available bases, and the 12 laser troops I now have at my disposal would have a hard time spreading out and quickly doing more damage across her very large territory. So when she calls me, I answer and accept the truce. I had this war just the way I like it--swift and decisive.



2218: I expected this to block Domai's empty transport, but he gets away the next turn. At first I thought the AI might be cheating, but it turns out that sea units aren't affected by ZOC. The more you know. I feel like they should be affected--but I'm not the game designer.



An overview of the new borders. Aki is pretty much out of the game, dropping to a fourth place just above H'minee. Meanwhile, I rocketed up from barely defending third from Domai to challenging Morgan for his throne. Without an HQ, Aki's tech is abysmal, whereas mine is still the best.

As for my posting schedule, I'm aware that some of the momentum from beginning this AAR has faded; my plan is to stick to a consistent schedule. I'm going to alternate Lal segments and gameplay segments, trying to pop one off per day. I'll also be away from my computer for an extended period of time beginning on June 27.

[pcangler]

I'll try that idea about attempting and failing to negotiate with H'minee. Inconveniently, it seems as though Morgan is the big threat, which would seemingly set me up for a quieter game...but I'm going to try to ignore that.

I have a history of objecting to philosophical abstractions, very much preferring concrete reasoning with real world examples to provide context.  Many of these philosophical moral dilemmas, are contrivances, where the contrivance itself seeks to authorize limited options.  Using contrivances as a means to authority, doesn't fool me.

You're not alone in this. As you might have figured, I'm interested in philosophical abstraction, and some friends or family that I mention ideas to often react by refusing to engage with it outright. Because, as you said, they think that it's an attempt to distort reality to facilitate a generalized conclusion that only works in the world of the abstraction. A cheap trick, smoke and mirrors.

If you ask me, a contrivance used to demonstrate an ethical point usually isn't so clear-cut. Sometimes there's room for differing opinions in the world of abstraction, and almost always debate rages on whether the abstraction can be used to support varying conclusions in the real world or not. That said, there are indeed examples of "cheap tricks" intended to obfuscate truth, see Anselm's ontological argument. But then, there are ways to understand why it makes no sense, instead of throwing up our hands and ignoring all abstractions.

For that reason and because I personally find them useful, I think it's better to think about the abstraction instead of throwing it away since it's made up. But that's because I don't see why, categorically, hypotheticals or abstractions are always irrelevant to ethical principles. That would require--well, that would require philosophizing.

[pcangler]

As we approached, Alpha Prime's ravaged brilliance was imprinted on my eyes. My first thought upon assessing the damage was its enormity. Despite my dreams and the hopes of the noble U.N. council, the Unity's escape to the stars was not an escape from war. As our rover struggled over some rubble, I looked to the side and again was confronted with an image of it--an imitation of a human face, charred and deformed.

Minutes into our journey, the first evidence of remaining life appears, evidence of the Cybernetic citizens unhappy with their new masters. It is unhappy, but it has always been this way. In the weeks before my visit, I've had to handle more than one riot in this place. Its population is larger than U.N. Headquarters. Smoke, bleakness, filth, and an odor of death.

Brother Pravin Lal closed his journal. He thought back to his days on Earth, particularly his study of warfare from the perspective of a leader. As a teenager, he'd been a pacifist because of the warfare scarring his homeland of India. He'd become famous for his humanitarian efforts in the Twelve-Minute War, cementing his devotion to saving life. He'd seen and treated unspeakable atrocities firsthand.

After becoming a politician, his views shifted. Despite his philosophy study at Oxford, his thoughts on warfare didn't converge into a discrete thesis; his medical degree didn't help there either. In the end, he let his mind settle on the pragmatic position that the evil inflicted must not outweigh the evil averted. It was enough then; he wasn't a leader of a quarter of the human race, struggling to survive with the other parts. He wasn't ever pressed to wage a war, so he could spend time cleaning up after other countries' conflicts instead. Concerning himself with humanitarianism satisfied his pacifist urges without raising questions of the morality of war.

It wasn't so simple anymore. He'd been forced to make a quick decision--to pursue peace by defensive action only, or to use a preemptive strike to force a surrender. He'd chosen the second option. The reasoning as to why was partially down to an estimation of Prime Function Aki Zeta-5's willingness to surrender, but it was also influenced by his hopes of incapacitating her chokehold on technological development. Something lurked behind that idea--cold ambition, the desire for what was his to win. It felt unnatural, but Lal was human and it was there. He justified this tendency through the prevention of future evil once the colonists would be unified, but it was all a gamble. He could always be wrong.

It was upon this meditation that Lal thought of a paper he wrote during the aforementioned philosophy study in his university days. It was concerning a revisionary theory of warfare whose key thesis was that it denied that combatants fighting an unjust war have any right to kill enemy combatants opposing their efforts. Similarly, one might argue that bystanders to a robbery don't have a right to oppose the efforts of those fighting against the robbers. If they do, they forfeit their rights to be defended and may be attacked by the victims of robbery. At first, Lal agreed strongly with this idea. While other theories of war didn't take into account the moral causes for which soldiers fought, this revisionary view revolved around it.

However, he soon found that this had a basic problem. On the one hand, it isn't clear that combatants fighting for an unjust cause are plausibly regarded as forfeiting their normal human right to life. Soldiers in modern wars can appeal to excuses of ignorance and personal necessity and block criticism that they are responsible for fighting for an unjust cause.

If the standard for forfeiture was lowered to include soldiers unknowingly fighting for an unjust cause, then making choices that foreseeably contribute to an unjust cause suffices to establish liability to be killed. However, this includes some noncombatants. If the threshold of responsibility in terms of assisting injustice were raised to protect noncombatants on the unjust side, then combatants on that side would invariably also be protected by rights, making their deaths wrong for the just side to cause.

Lal didn't like either of these options, since they run counter to the intuitive, traditional theory of war, namely, that combatants can be killed since they voluntarily opposed the just side, and noncombatants may not because they have not agreed to the contract of war. This delivers a fatal contradiction for Lal--he must choose between these options, or else abandon the theory altogether. The options? They were to practically abandon war altogether and return to pacifism, or decide that many more noncombatants than is currently thought justifiable may be permissibly killed in service of a just goal.

And right now? He realized that he'd chosen the second option. Gambling on the value of his Peacekeeping government, he ordered an aggressive strike against the Prime Function, decimating her defenses in a few years at minimal resource cost for the Peacekeeping Forces. When he was writing that paper, he came to the conclusion that the revisionary theory of warfare must be wrong--otherwise one side of the fatal contradiction would be chosen.

The weakness of the traditional alternative, he now discovered, was that it discounted the moral merits of a soldier's cause. As a politician, he believed in his nation, views, and the Peacekeeping way of life. He truly thought that the prospect of reuniting what remained of humanity under his rule, as opposed to that of the other leaders, was worth conflict. And in doing so, he had therefore cut out the traditional theory of war. What followed was the pragmatic choice to go for realism over pacifism: small atrocities would be committed. Still, he didn't know what to think; if he could justify these wars on the basis that he should rule the world, how different was he from a holovid supervillain? In the moment, who's to say which side is just and unjust? Each theory certainly had its merits, and its pitfalls.

But right now, it didn't feel like he had any choice. He swore fealty to the success of the mission, and if he had to fight to protect it, fine. So be it.

[pcangler]

2221: With the Human Genome Project, controlling drones is gonna be a lot easier. This allows me to lose some doctors to help angry bases grow faster. It also puts me one SP closer to supremacy.





Interesting developments on the wartime front. Miriam seems to be fighting back, so maybe she can hold off long enough for H'minee's newfound rival, the Drones, to defeat the alien scum. I wouldn't be surprised if Miriam backstabs me soon. Domai is running Theocratic, and I'm not. If that does happen, I might bargain for peace with Domai/Miriam using tech, to help them against H'minee.



2224: I can't be the only one who's done this. I'm currently facing a naval attack from Domai's navy, and my fledgling forces can't handle his. I was transporting units over to U.N. Ocean Authority (where the spearhead of his attack is) and realized the potential for this base to be a canal to transport troops faster.



2230: Morgan made several copies of this SP, so he also gets Supercollider and Universal Translator. This really concerned me at first until I realized that he built Supercollider at a base that previously had 4 labs. Meanwhile,  Aki is producing Hunter-Seeker, an SP I don't have the tech for yet. I really need that, so I'm going to focus on tech for the time being with my +3 Justice and try to accumulate enough credits otherwise to rush buy the SP before her. It's doubtful, but I need the tech prerequisites anyway.

I just finished my naval war against Domai, in which I outproduced his navy with a home field advantage, coming out on top with five laser ships to spare. I'll use them to guard my shores. He could have taken U.N. Ocean Authority, but instead he kept mercilessly bombing a Clean Former at 10% health.



2235: View of current standings. I'm safely in second, but challenging Morgan is turning out to be a major challenge. Obviously, I'll need to challenge his industrial and technological might if I want to win, and since I have to choose diplomacy, I suppose Empath Guild +  Conquest of my enemies is the way to go. To get Empath Guild, I'll need tech, so I'm remaining on my current path.

[pcangler]

Politically speaking, Lal's U.N. Peacekeepers were in a stable position. The more or less established parties wielded a majority of power, and although Lal had faced criticism for his handling of the Cybernetic conflict, that criticism had died down in recent years. A hot topic issue at the moment was electoral reforms, particularly those aimed at more direct rule by citizens. Apart from the typical calls to reduce the influence of corporate interests in politics, an interesting proposal that had caught surprising support was recall power in the national legislative assemblies. There was also a proposal in favor of direct election of his position, but that was mostly symbolic considering his widespread popularity.

Indeed, Lal was one of the few leaders in history to enjoy such long, unbroken political service within a democratic state. Despite this, he had no formal political training, his only education on that front being a political philosophy course he'd taken as a Junior. Thinking about that course, and the political issues currently engaging his subjects, reminded him of Plato's political philosophy. The Athenian thinker had strongly opposed democracy, arguing instead for an aristocratic form of government in which a benevolent philosopher and dictator ruled.

Lal remembered scoffing at the idea. Plato's views were clearly a product of his time; he couldn't understand the effects of widespread education and population growth. A benevolent dictatorship would never win enough support to last, and one person alone didn't have the intelligence to make every decision correctly. Of course, a greek city-state wasn't the same as his nation. But he was a form of philosopher-king, wasn't he? Half of his education was in philosophy. His primary ideological drive focused on rights and humanism, which he knew was rooted in philosophical thinking. He was a king in the sense that his rule was unchallenged.

Yet Plato's philosopher-king was necessarily autocratic, not democratic. In his famous "Ship of State" analogy, Plato compared such a ruler to a man with experience in navigation that ignores the opinions of the other sailors on the ship who know nothing of navigation. In the metaphor, navigating correctly meant both to rule in favor of the nation's success, but also to lead it to a just future. Plato thought that only a philosopher, as opposed to a layman, could adequately understand justice. Therefore, democracy was unacceptable for a just state.

Lal disagreed with this view, of course. To him, democracy was a contributing factor to a state's justness, ensuring that officials and leaders remain grounded in the needs of their citizens and honest in their views and actions. Plato, he thought, put too much faith in a man just because of his being a philosopher. But Lal had to admit that Plato had a point about the other members of the Ship of State. The ship's owner, representing the people as a broad mass, was shortsighted and knew little of navigation, like the sailors. However, the sailors, motivated to pilot the ship themselves, boast of their skill and bribe the shipowner with wine and drugs so that he imbibes and lacks proper judgment. Plato sees these sailors as demagogues who mislead the populace for power despite not having knowledge of what is just.

Having been a politician for well over a century, Lal knew full well the truth of the falsely intelligent demagogue. But unlike Plato, who suggested that the educated navigator aboard the ship take power and rule by force, Lal advocated for the philosophers to strike a balance and convince the general populace, whether by appeal to institutions or otherwise, that only they could navigate. Lal believed that the populace could make this decision if they were not allowed to drink too much wine of lobbyism and radicalism.

It was a difficult way to run a society, a balancing act. What distinguished Plato's argument from Lal's was in large part the era, as the contemporary period's access to information effectively made the populace capable of accessing political information more readily. A double-edged sword, this ability allowed the more educated classes to add their numbers to the philosophers or supporters of justice generally. This change therefore allowed the populace to reject demagoguery more readily than before and embrace justice. The information revolution had, in short, given the shipowner glasses.

In comparison to Plato's suggested Polis, which was heavily criticized as unrealistic to implement, Lal's beliefs in liberal democracy had been proven to work on Earth. Would they work here? In that sense, he was again similar to Plato--attempting to implement an old system in a new situation, betting on its consistency to win the prize of justice. He was a conservative standard-bearer of the old ways of Earth, and he believed that his philosopher-kingdom would be maintained despite his willingness to listen to the people. What threatened to break the process was technology--but no matter. It was his role as U.N. Commissioner to bring that standard across the finish line, or find its limits.

[bvanevery]

"Democratic": elected for 500 years.   

 

[bvanevery]

My own batting average for actually completing my AARs was something like 50%.  How's yours going?
Does Lal celebrate the 4th of July?   

If you tap out, I'd be interested to know if there was a point of pain in the game that caused you to do so.  Meaning, something I could fix.  Although it is entirely possible to just play a game where things don't seem to be going well.  That happens to me with my own mod, a surprising number of times!  I wouldn't say it's usually a hard "I'm done for," but more like "Meh, I don't like how this is going."