Some random thoughts on Three Worlds Collide, which I was re-reading on a whim:
“Why have you not yet disabled the Babyeater ship? Your craft possesses the capability of doing so, and you must realize that your purpose now opposes theirs.”
“Because,” Akon said, “they did not disable our ship.”
The Lady 3rd nodded. “You are symmetrists, then.”
I feel like there’s a better answer here: “Because it’s hard to un-shoot them later if we decide it was a bad idea.” When uncertain what to do, keep your options open.
That’s also my answer to “Humankind, you did not likewise repair yourselves when you attained to technology,” I think. Species-wide self-modification on that scale probably isn’t something you should do unless you are certain that 1. it will work as intended, 2. you can reverse it if it doesn’t, and 3. the change itself doesn’t screw up your ability to determine whether it was a good idea. If you can’t be that certain, better to wait. Not-modifying is easier to correct later if you were wrong than modifying.
When uncertain what to do, keep your options open.
Right, I recall having the same thought, if fleeting. “Measure twice and cut once” and all that.
My main gripe with the story was actually the universal (across species) desire to impose one’s morality on alien intelligences. This premise challenged my suspension of disbelief more than anything else in the story.
“desire to impose one’s morality on alien intelligences.”
Actually it wasn’t quite universal. The Baby Eaters (for all their obvious flaws) only tried to change other people’s minds by debate and discussion. I was a bit disappointed that humanity didn’t try and take the alien poetic argument and respond to it. As pointed out, it likely wouldn’t have been fruitful given the Baby Eaters neurology is largely built on recycled baby-eating circuitry, but still.
Although of course it could be argued that the reason why we didn’t see the Baby Eaters actually impose their morality was they were the least technologically sophisticated of all 3 species.
You are the philosopher, why are you asking me? But we certainly love telling others what they are doing wrong, whether it affects us or not. “Live and let live” attitude is there, but not very popular. And non-existent in 3WC.
Well, if I had to take a guess (at gunpoint, etc.) I suppose I would say that we try to impose our moral beliefs on other people because we think as a matter of fact that those others are already bound by those moral norms. And our imposition just consists in our trying to get them to acknowledge that fact.
But now that I put it that way, I’ve flipped myself around entirely and I wonder why anyone would wish to ‘live and let live’? After all, if I am subject to a given moral norm, I’d certainly want to know about it.
After all, if I am subject to a given moral norm, I’d certainly want to know about it.
With the caveat “but I already know about it, obviously, it’s those savages who do not and need to be shown the light”, just like in 3WC. Three repugnant (to me) species in one story, I’ve only now realized. Of course, it’s likely that I’m simply pointing at the log in someone else’s eye.
Is the desire to impose one’s morality on alien intelligences surprising relative to the “Eliminate the alien species” option, or “Conduct trade with the alien species”, or “Avoid the alien species as much as possible”?
None of the above. Human cultures used to be pretty good at “let those other weirdos do what they want, as long as they don’t bother us” until certain proselytizing religions came along.
I’m not convinced. Proselytization — and even forced conversion — seem to have been a less violent alternative to the previous human habit of killing all the adults and boys, taking the virgin girls as rape slaves, and eradicating the culture of “those other weirdos” when a military advantage can be had.
Moses was angry with the officers of the army [...] who returned from the battle. [...] “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” — Numbers 31:14,17-18
Human cultures used to be pretty good at “let those other weirdos do what they want, as long as they don’t bother us” until certain proselytizing religions came along.
That’s just not true at all.
Look at studies of warfare in “stone-age” tribes, e.g. in the Amazon or New Guinea. It’s low-intensity but pretty constant.
Or look at the Vikings. Or the Mongol horde. How do you think the Roman Empire got so big? Etc, etc.
Everyone replying seems to be misreading what I intended to express. Come on, give me some credit, I am not a complete idiot. Of course human tribes (and animal packs) fought for resources of various kinds. What the tribes cared little about is other tribes’ treatment of their own members.
What the tribes cared little about is other tribes’ treatment of their own members.
That did NOT change when “certain proselytizing religions came along.” Tribes fought for power and resources; they still fight for power and resources, PR efforts notwithstanding.
I feel like there’s a better answer here: “Because it’s hard to un-shoot them later if we decide it was a bad idea.” When uncertain what to do, keep your options open.
Superhappies don’t act symmetrically with just anyone. Only with other symmetrists. If humans decided not to shoot them for the reason you gave, and the Superhappies found out, the human’s interests would have been ignored.
Species-wide self-modification on that scale probably isn’t something you should do unless you are certain that 1. it will work as intended, 2. you can reverse it if it doesn’t, and 3. the change itself doesn’t screw up your ability to determine whether it was a good idea.
I agree (at least with 1 and perhaps 2), but this answer seems like a cop-out. I think the point of that theme of Three Worlds Collide is about self-modification in principle, not just about it being safe and working as intended. The true rejection is not “We’d like to, we’re just being cautious”, it’s “This modification repels us and we wouldn’t do it even if we knew it would work as intended”.
Some random thoughts on Three Worlds Collide, which I was re-reading on a whim:
I feel like there’s a better answer here: “Because it’s hard to un-shoot them later if we decide it was a bad idea.” When uncertain what to do, keep your options open.
That’s also my answer to “Humankind, you did not likewise repair yourselves when you attained to technology,” I think. Species-wide self-modification on that scale probably isn’t something you should do unless you are certain that 1. it will work as intended, 2. you can reverse it if it doesn’t, and 3. the change itself doesn’t screw up your ability to determine whether it was a good idea. If you can’t be that certain, better to wait. Not-modifying is easier to correct later if you were wrong than modifying.
Right, I recall having the same thought, if fleeting. “Measure twice and cut once” and all that.
My main gripe with the story was actually the universal (across species) desire to impose one’s morality on alien intelligences. This premise challenged my suspension of disbelief more than anything else in the story.
“desire to impose one’s morality on alien intelligences.” Actually it wasn’t quite universal. The Baby Eaters (for all their obvious flaws) only tried to change other people’s minds by debate and discussion. I was a bit disappointed that humanity didn’t try and take the alien poetic argument and respond to it. As pointed out, it likely wouldn’t have been fruitful given the Baby Eaters neurology is largely built on recycled baby-eating circuitry, but still.
Although of course it could be argued that the reason why we didn’t see the Baby Eaters actually impose their morality was they were the least technologically sophisticated of all 3 species.
Well, do you think anyone wants to impose their morality on others? If so, why do they want this?
You are the philosopher, why are you asking me? But we certainly love telling others what they are doing wrong, whether it affects us or not. “Live and let live” attitude is there, but not very popular. And non-existent in 3WC.
Well, if I had to take a guess (at gunpoint, etc.) I suppose I would say that we try to impose our moral beliefs on other people because we think as a matter of fact that those others are already bound by those moral norms. And our imposition just consists in our trying to get them to acknowledge that fact.
But now that I put it that way, I’ve flipped myself around entirely and I wonder why anyone would wish to ‘live and let live’? After all, if I am subject to a given moral norm, I’d certainly want to know about it.
With the caveat “but I already know about it, obviously, it’s those savages who do not and need to be shown the light”, just like in 3WC. Three repugnant (to me) species in one story, I’ve only now realized. Of course, it’s likely that I’m simply pointing at the log in someone else’s eye.
Two repugnant species, I’d say. The Superhappies were right.
Hm! This may well be the problem with the story.
Is the desire to impose one’s morality on alien intelligences surprising relative to the “Eliminate the alien species” option, or “Conduct trade with the alien species”, or “Avoid the alien species as much as possible”?
None of the above. Human cultures used to be pretty good at “let those other weirdos do what they want, as long as they don’t bother us” until certain proselytizing religions came along.
I thought the more usual practice throughout history was “we don’t care what those other weirdos want, we want their land”.
I’m not convinced. Proselytization — and even forced conversion — seem to have been a less violent alternative to the previous human habit of killing all the adults and boys, taking the virgin girls as rape slaves, and eradicating the culture of “those other weirdos” when a military advantage can be had.
Moses was angry with the officers of the army [...] who returned from the battle. [...] “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” — Numbers 31:14,17-18
That’s just not true at all.
Look at studies of warfare in “stone-age” tribes, e.g. in the Amazon or New Guinea. It’s low-intensity but pretty constant.
Or look at the Vikings. Or the Mongol horde. How do you think the Roman Empire got so big? Etc, etc.
Everyone replying seems to be misreading what I intended to express. Come on, give me some credit, I am not a complete idiot. Of course human tribes (and animal packs) fought for resources of various kinds. What the tribes cared little about is other tribes’ treatment of their own members.
That did NOT change when “certain proselytizing religions came along.” Tribes fought for power and resources; they still fight for power and resources, PR efforts notwithstanding.
Superhappies don’t act symmetrically with just anyone. Only with other symmetrists. If humans decided not to shoot them for the reason you gave, and the Superhappies found out, the human’s interests would have been ignored.
I agree (at least with 1 and perhaps 2), but this answer seems like a cop-out. I think the point of that theme of Three Worlds Collide is about self-modification in principle, not just about it being safe and working as intended. The true rejection is not “We’d like to, we’re just being cautious”, it’s “This modification repels us and we wouldn’t do it even if we knew it would work as intended”.