As far as I’m concerned, the humans in the story would be entirely justified in treating the Superhappies as mortal enemies who constitute an existential threat to humanity, and against whom any amount of force may reasonably be applied to stop them from making good on their intentions toward us… and, likewise, the Babyeaters would be equally justified in treating the humans in the same way. It would be foolishness to the point of sheer insanity, for the Superhappies (or, respectively, the humans) to expect the humans (or, respectively, the Babyeaters) to respond otherwise. (Any engagement with negotiations, by each respective weaker party, should in such a case be understood only as appeasement, forced only by threat of brute force, and only as permanent and reliable as that threat.)
Since this is hardly a productive way for civilizations to interact with each other, the much more sensible thing to do is just to leave each other alone, and to interact on mutually consensual terms only—making no attempt to meddle in one another’s internal affairs.
The story brings up the possibility that, the disutility of the babyeaters might outweigh the utility of humanity. There’s certainly nothing logically impossible about this.
Sorry this is so late. I haven’t been on the site for a while. My last post was in reply to no interference always being better than fighting it out. Most of the character’s seem to think that stopping the baby eaters has more utility than letting the superhappies do the same thing to us would cost.
Indeed.
As far as I’m concerned, the humans in the story would be entirely justified in treating the Superhappies as mortal enemies who constitute an existential threat to humanity, and against whom any amount of force may reasonably be applied to stop them from making good on their intentions toward us… and, likewise, the Babyeaters would be equally justified in treating the humans in the same way. It would be foolishness to the point of sheer insanity, for the Superhappies (or, respectively, the humans) to expect the humans (or, respectively, the Babyeaters) to respond otherwise. (Any engagement with negotiations, by each respective weaker party, should in such a case be understood only as appeasement, forced only by threat of brute force, and only as permanent and reliable as that threat.)
Since this is hardly a productive way for civilizations to interact with each other, the much more sensible thing to do is just to leave each other alone, and to interact on mutually consensual terms only—making no attempt to meddle in one another’s internal affairs.
The story brings up the possibility that, the disutility of the babyeaters might outweigh the utility of humanity. There’s certainly nothing logically impossible about this.
I don’t see how this is responsive to anything I said. Could you elaborate?
Sorry this is so late. I haven’t been on the site for a while. My last post was in reply to no interference always being better than fighting it out. Most of the character’s seem to think that stopping the baby eaters has more utility than letting the superhappies do the same thing to us would cost.