Did he or didn't he?
- Thread starter jedi2187
- Start date
AdmiralHuang said:
Actually, I think the Confederation might very well go into mass panic. Remember, the Confederation was forced to the brink of extinction in the Terran-Kilrathi war. It's been a decade or so, and Confed's had time to build up its fleet, but the Confederation is still fragile (the Border World secession probably didn't help matters here). Confed would like to think it's on top, but if word came that a truly unstoppable alien force were again heading towards Earth, I think people would be stupid not to panic.
Also, it's likely that revelations about the escape ships and Confed's various contingency plans would have become public, and people would probably not be very happy about learning that the politicians had a plan to ship themselves all off to safety.
We also get the distinct impression from the WCSO fiction that the government wants to keep as tight as lid on any information about the new threat from leaking to the public. At times, it's insinuated that Confed has its own plans for the alien technology. And it could well be that elements of the Black Lance continue to operate; no witch hunt is ever 100% effective.
Then there's the whole incident with the Blue Horizons, where citizens are mislead into thinking that there's no further risk. Also, as we can see with the current US administration, governments don't like to admit that they're wrong, and there had been a rather big victory celebration on news that the alien threat had been soundly defeated (ha, ha).
I also always thought Governor Cavazo's final lines in WCSO smacked of some sort of conspiracy. The admiral gives an enthusiastic report about the victory over the alien, and the governor just goes (I'm paraphrasing here), "That's nice, bye"? WTF?!?
In short, lots of reasons for a government to keep things as quiet as possible.
About birds: I knew a guy who was once dive-bombed by sea gulls during P.E. He came back smelling like... well, you know.
AdmiralHuang
Spaceman
If they're evil, tyrannical dictator ducks, you would fear them as well (they reign over the local park with an iron fist... erm, wing?).
But wouldn't it work better in the long run if the Confed populace knew about it and could prepare for the upcoming battle?
But wouldn't it work better in the long run if the Confed populace knew about it and could prepare for the upcoming battle?
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
No.
ChanceKell
Rear Admiral
GeeBot said:
That's kind of bold to say. Only the most paranoid fighters on the front lines of the war considered "extinction" by the Kilrathi. Loss and enslavement was a more thought about worse-case scenario, but there was very little evidence the Kilrathi were going to totally erradicate humankind.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Aside, of course, from the 2668 declaration by the Empire that they'd forgoe slavery in order to totally erradicate humankind. 
overmortal
Bearded Person
Well, you know how finicky those kilrathi are with their delcarations of erradication and all 
What I found interesting was the Kilrathi anti-human propaganda to their civilians and troops. "There's nothing humans like more than to eat a kil for breakfast." (not an exact quote; paraphrased from the "breakfast with the Kilrathi Emperor" scene in FC)
What I found interesting was the Kilrathi anti-human propaganda to their civilians and troops. "There's nothing humans like more than to eat a kil for breakfast." (not an exact quote; paraphrased from the "breakfast with the Kilrathi Emperor" scene in FC)
Edfilho said:
I think a lot of folks who played WC4 agree with Tolwyn (I know I do), so why not folks in Confed? One of the things that made WC4 work so well was the ambiguity of the moral questions involved... it's still an open question whether or not Tolwyn was right all along: for all we know, the Nephilim might succeed in wiping out humanity, something that might have been prevented if the Black Lance and genetic enhancement project had been allowed to continue.
Any action required for the survival of the human race is morally justifiable. You might disagree with that, but then you're extinct and the folks who survive get to make the rules.
As for covering up being non-democratic... it's a fallacy to think that democracies can not keep secrets. Democracies can wage war, or take morally questionable actions--indeed, sometimes it seems like democracies are more capable of taking ruthless action than many dictatorships. I think American history in the 20th century is a good example of this.
Sycorax said:
Well, I am, but that's mainly due to an unpleasant encounter with a large goose... I think the fear of ducks just get included for the ride.
AdmiralHuang said:
In the long run, yes... but like most human beings, politicians prefer to delay any unpleasant action to the last possible moment. Note the reluctance of US presidents to resume the draft since Vietnam, and the current reluctance of the US administration to admit any mistakes are ever made in any area, period.
Edfilho
Cry some more!
GeeBot said:
If the black Lance succeded, there wouldn't be a human race for the Nephs to fight. 95% erradicated? The rest wouldn't probably last much longer.
And tolwyn might have diagnosed the "sickness" correctly, but all his attempts to cure it were completely insane.
These actions might be justified, but who is to decide? So, if one day I, Edmo, decide that killing everyone north of the equator is the only way to save the human race, and for some quirk of the destiny, I have the power to do so, would I be right??
Tolwyn had no right to take humanity's destiny on his hands. He should have brought the matter to the REST of the freakin' human race to decide.
My country suffered under the yoke of a military dicatorship for 30 damn years. The Generals who engineered this coup d'etat firmly believed that they were doing the best for Brasil. Very few dictators see themselves as being Evil. Not even Hitler did. Tolwyn was in the same position.
I find this kind of belief to be sacary and dangerous.
Yes, the US did some very bad things lately, and I do believe it's not really democratic to do so. One thing is to keep the Temblor bomb secret, the other is to wage a war without telling the people. The population has the right to know. They are not children. Patronizing the people is a trait of totalitarism. A true democracy has strong and enlightend citizens.
Well, agreed. But that explains but does not justify.
Delance
Victory, you say?
I agree with Ed. But when someone claims that genocide can be morally justifiable you can’t really hope for a rational debate.
The point is, who gets to make this decisions? Just because Tolwyn decided that killing of 90% of mankind was a good idea doesn't mean its right. For all we know, it would weaken mankind terribly. People like Stephen Hawking would be killed. Perhaps Dr. Severin of the Temblor bomb could have iron-poor blood or something.
Anyone can say Tolwyn could be right. Well, it’s impossible to test such ideas, just like with any macro-social engineering theory, so all of them “could” be right. But since they also could be wrong, and for all we know they probably are, there’s no justification for it, since you cannot possibly prove that it would work. Historically speaking, social engineering has caused nothing but disgrace, misery and death, so it doesn’t have a good track record.
What Tolwyn was right about is that mankind almost killed itself by not winning the war when it could, by falling into a trap. So that “failure” in human “culture” did exist – but what Tolwyn proposed was no solution.
There were already countless debates and flame-wars about this. It’s not relevant if Tolwyn had good intentions in his heart, or if he was clinically insane. There’s no way that kind of plan could be “morally justifiable”, since it’s impossible to correctly predict the outcome, and, ultimately, would certainly bring more harm then good, even with “good intentions”.
Ed, remember that the military dictatorship in Brazil was authoritarian, but not totalitarian. Even your friend mr. Gaspari states in his books that the other later would be far worst. But that doesn’t justify the former, of course.
The point is, who gets to make this decisions? Just because Tolwyn decided that killing of 90% of mankind was a good idea doesn't mean its right. For all we know, it would weaken mankind terribly. People like Stephen Hawking would be killed. Perhaps Dr. Severin of the Temblor bomb could have iron-poor blood or something.
Anyone can say Tolwyn could be right. Well, it’s impossible to test such ideas, just like with any macro-social engineering theory, so all of them “could” be right. But since they also could be wrong, and for all we know they probably are, there’s no justification for it, since you cannot possibly prove that it would work. Historically speaking, social engineering has caused nothing but disgrace, misery and death, so it doesn’t have a good track record.
What Tolwyn was right about is that mankind almost killed itself by not winning the war when it could, by falling into a trap. So that “failure” in human “culture” did exist – but what Tolwyn proposed was no solution.
There were already countless debates and flame-wars about this. It’s not relevant if Tolwyn had good intentions in his heart, or if he was clinically insane. There’s no way that kind of plan could be “morally justifiable”, since it’s impossible to correctly predict the outcome, and, ultimately, would certainly bring more harm then good, even with “good intentions”.
Ed, remember that the military dictatorship in Brazil was authoritarian, but not totalitarian. Even your friend mr. Gaspari states in his books that the other later would be far worst. But that doesn’t justify the former, of course.
Edfilho
Cry some more!
But I do think ignoring leHah is completelly morally right.
Delance, the shades between dictatorship tipyes weren't my point. I wanted to show how people we consider "evil" saw themselves as messiahs. There's not that much self aware evil in the RL. Guys like Skeletor don't prance around planning evil things to do for fun.
Delance, the shades between dictatorship tipyes weren't my point. I wanted to show how people we consider "evil" saw themselves as messiahs. There's not that much self aware evil in the RL. Guys like Skeletor don't prance around planning evil things to do for fun.
Edfilho said:
Well, obviously, you can claim anything you want, but the keyword here is "required". That said, I think you'd be right to wipe out everyone north of the equator if it truly was necessary, or in any event, if you truly believed[/i] it was necessary, and there wasn't any reason to think you were wrong. In such a case, better to do the hard thing and kill everyone, rather than wait and see if some plague kills off the rest of humanity.
It's basically a risk-reward computation: yes, maybe we might find a cure, and mass homicide is unnecessary. However, if the chances of developing such a cure are outweighed by the chances for human extinction, then it is not only preferrable, but morally required that one choose (to paraphrase Spock) to save the many than the one, or the few. It's cold, and there's something just plain wrong about it, but humanity won't get very far if it's never willing to make a hard choice.
In the end, history will be your judge. The United States dropped atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands in an action which remains extremely controversial (personally, I don't think it was necessary or right); in the final analysis, though, the US has never been punished for taking that action (and I think it's doubtful it ever will be, regardless of what happens in the future), and it remains the pre-eminent world power. The winners write the history books, as they say. Doesn't it seem a little strange that the "evil" people never win in the long run? Either this means humanity has always been a lot more rational than most people give it credit for, or the "good" people win by definition.
I think it's probably a matter of our values being shaped by the past; I can even imagine (quite easily) that if Hitler had won WW2, and succeeded in exterminating the Jews, the vast majority of people would eventually become convinced that it had been a good idea; after all, who'd protest in their favor? What evidence would there be the contrary? People tend to have short memories. If people did eventually change their mind, it'd have to be because there's something so fundamentally objectionable about genocide that the objective facts could not be denied. And for genocide to be objectionable, you have to have a rapport with the victims; few people take enough time to reflect and be sorry about killing off the dodos--we might feel the same way about a suitably alien species, even a sentient one, and have no compunction about exterminating them to preserve the human race.
Now just transport yourself back to the early 20th century, when we weren't so enlightened about the one-ness of humanity, and imagine what people might think about such "alien" races. Indeed, at the time, nobody really gave much thought to the plight of the Jews, until the full reality of what had happened spread. And the United States was guilty of a nearly genocidal rage against the Japanese following Pearl Harbor, although to the credit of the democratic system, the US government ultimately didn't follow through with the popular sentiment to the final conclusion.
To return to Wing Commander: Heck, isn't Confed's eventual goal wiping Nephilim? Assuming that the Nephilim are truly impossible to co-exist with, and assuming Confed wins the war, won't we end up exterminating a sentient species in the name of human survival? And (in the hypothetical case that EA/Origin ever finishes what they started) won't we be cheering along with the crew in the final cutscene, as the alien homeworld explodes, wiping out the very last bug? Didn't we do that very thing when Kilrah went up as a cloud of magma? Isn't that genocide?
*start edit*
I realize this is a controversial topic, and we're not going to agree about it, and heck, I'll probably even be vilified for taking such a Machiavellian viewpoint. In my defense, I don't live my life this way; I share all those warm and fuzzy values as everyone else. But I'm trying to approach this question rationally, with complete honesty: when push comes to shove, what would I do if my survival was threatened? What if the survival of the whole human race was threatened? Is it better to let oneself be happily slaughtered by an aggressor because you don't believe that "force ever solves anything"?
I don't think anyone can really answer that question until they've truly been in it; humanity has never been put in a situation remotely like the Terran-Kilrathi War, where extermination was not only a possibility, it was the most likely possibility.
Probably one of the most dangerous things you can lead yourself to believe is that the world is a safe and happy place that respects the rights of those who object. Freedom isn't free; we only have it in some very limited portions of the world because some people were willing to die for it so that the rest of us could enjoy it in peace. The rights of individuals is a concept that only dates back to the Enlightenment, and is far from universal.
On a more personal note, I think recent events only reinforces that; what I get upset with the most is how the rest of the world seems to treat terrorism as only the American's problem, since the Americans are the target; that somehow, Americans deserve to be the target. And that if you just hide your head and don't take any risks, you won't draw the attention of the terrorists by provoking them somehow, and everything will be OK for you. This is exactly the sort of attitude that prevailed in the United States before September 11th; the sort of attitude we have now isn't thoughtless over-reaction, it's a greater awareness of the true state of the world beyond our borders. The tragedy is that it shouldn't take September 11ths all over the world for other people to learn that.
*end edit*
Edfilho said:
I think saying the US has done some "very bad things lately" is pushing it a bit. Personally, I think invading Iraq was a good thing, if only because it got rid of Saddam Hussein--I don't give a wooden nickle whether it was bad because the UN didn't say we could do it, or whether it's because we want to colonize Iraq and steal all its oil (that'd probably still be better than Hussein running the place, but I digress--incidentally, the whole idea of colonization is ass backwards because (1) the US is going to be happy to leave the place as soon as possible, and (2) if the US wanted to steal all of Iraq's oil, it has lots of cheaper ways to do it). And defying the Kyoto protocol, or the UN, or whatever international treaty Bush wants to tear up this week isn't evil, just a political difference, and at most misguided. It's not like the US has ramped up greenhouse gas emissions 10 fold in a conspiracy to turn Brazil into a wasteland. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not very fond of Bush, and think his whole approach of stick-over-carrot and general impatience is downright counter-productive, not to mention his slavish devotion to corporate interests, but he's not evil).
However, whether or not you agree with recent history, the United States has been doing "bad things" throughout the 20th century (I was thinking of saying 20th and 21st century, but I think it's too soon to pass judgement on the last 3 years). Ever since about 1892 or so, the United States has been invading countries on a regular basis, propping up dictators, and committing atrocities in the name of fighting communism or whatever the cause celebre is at the moment. Personally, I think invading Afghanistan and chucking Saddam Hussein has more to do with the US finally cleaning up its own messes; heck, you could almost describe it as responsible.
Despite all the screwups, the US remains the de facto world leader. Like it or not, agree or disagree, there's no denying that the US does pretty much whatever it wants, and there's nobody in the world who is going to stand up to that in any effective way. Furthermore, although more debatably in light of recent events, the US continues to have a lot of influence in the world. By that measure, the past "bad actions" of the United States have ended up rewarding it with first place among nations. If it were up to some omnipotent independent arbiter, it'd probably have gone to Canada or some inoffensive country like that. I once heard this described as the US system of government (with a strong presidency) getting a C- in democracy (compared to parliamentary systems), but an A+ in world domination.
As for your other point, I think it's a little Pollyanna-ish to judge in advance what a democracy can and can not be allowed to hide. The United Kingdom is generally acknowledged to have a much more democratic system of government than the United States, yet the United Kingdom allowed the city of Coventry to basically be bombed to the ground during WW2 in order to hide the secret that the Enigma cipher had been broken. We're not talking about a decision like keeping the T-bomb secret, which didn't have any consequences for Confederation citizens; we're talking about keeping a secret that involves a real cost, a decision which weighed the value of human beings against each other. In the end, true democracy is about the tyranny of the majority, right or wrong; a rather dangerous system, if you ask me.
Edfilho said:
Which is exactly what I was trying to do: explain why a democracy might take an action, not justify it.
I was trying to point out that just because Confed is supposedly democratic (thought it's hinted that it's become a bit more authoritarian over the course of the war) doesn't mean that it's always going to do the right thing. It's the old saw about dictatorship being one idiot at the top running everything by decree, while democracy is a hundred idiots running everything by committee.