I actually explicitly address this one in the fic. I’m starting to doubt that you’ve been paying much attention.
I remember you addressing why a butchering facility is impractical. I don’t recall you addressing why it’s morally acceptable to hunt animals but not morally acceptable to hunt humans; if you did and I missed it, then I apologize sincerely, as that’s solid evidence I wasn’t paying attention.
What I’m talking about is not the Scottish method of making a blood pudding out of a butchered animal, but the Maasai method of bleeding a cow- essentially similar to the European method of milking cows or Canadian method of collecting maple sap. Since they’re doctors, they’d use syringes instead of arrows and plugs, but the basic idea would be the same: have a ‘dairy cow’ whose relevant organ is their marrow, not their udder.
They already considered this, but dismissed it, when it came to humans- they would be able to get the blood without killing, but would lose the benefit of calming animal blood.
(Since I’m thinking about this, the way I’d introduce it is not Bella thinking “wait, why are we killing them when we don’t have to?” or suddenly being interested in animal rights- but as a product of a debate where Bella raises the issue of vegetarianism with a human-eating vampire and the human-eater (particularly if it’s one that buys blood to consume, rather than killing) points out that Bella’s really not any better than the human-eaters or humans in general, and asks why they don’t put their morals into practice and abandon hunting- which Bella might then adopt as a great idea.)
She made mistakes, which stemmed more or less directly from flaws in her personality, and bad things happened.
I think the two main things that bother me about her mistakes are that, as far as I can tell, they come from flaws that you introduced and those flaws are unrelatable. Bella’s flaw is that she thinks that assassinating the world government is a good way to go about things (another way to think about this flaw is she considers politics more important than people). What’s the moral, here? Don’t try to assassinate world governments? I already knew that one, thanks.
What’s the deeper moral? If you’re vapid, the consequence is spending eternity telepathically beaming love at your husband, who is overcome by emotion and distracts you with the physical manifestation of that love. If you’re thoughtful, the consequence is spending eternity bound to a pile of ash while every day your husband’s ghost eats your liver anew. Why choose to rewrite the Prometheus myth?
The reasons I give for not having a butchering facility apply to any other facility that would keep domestic animals. The animals would still need a place to live that would be hard to pick up and move when the vampires got suspiciously youthful-looking for their claimed ages. Also, if the vampires were trying to keep animals alive, they would suck at it. The poor cows would die of stress from having to be around them.
As for your other criticisms: I’m sorry you aren’t enjoying the story I have chosen to tell. That’s a pity. I suggest you don’t waste more of your time on a story you don’t like. Hopefully you will be able to find something more worthy of your attention.
The poor cows would die of stress from having to be around them.
True- but one can buy animal blood much more easily than human blood. As far as I can tell, the sites I found googling only require a credit card, and your only contact will be the FedEx deliveryperson. The prices (about ~$150 to get as much sheep’s blood as it would take to fill a person) seem like they would be nowhere near troubling for vampires, and a front corporation doing medical research would be trivial to create.
Indeed, if Bella’s primary objection to vampires consuming blood is that it has to come from people, why not sell packaged blood to vampires? They still get the tasty blood they prefer, and people don’t have to die for it. They miss out on the calming effect, and more importantly miss out on the hunting, but I imagine there must be some vampires out there who don’t live to hunt, or would prefer being able to reside more permanently by hunting less frequently.
It’s possible anyone willing to take that option would already be taking that option- but people are more willing to make changes the easier you make those changes. Again, directly relevant experience for people- “I’m going to help my neighbors switch to vegetarianism by grocery shopping and teaching recipes” over “I’m going to murder Jim Purdue.”
As for your other criticisms: I’m sorry you aren’t enjoying the story I have chosen to tell. That’s a pity. I suggest you don’t waste more of your time on a story you don’t like. Hopefully you will be able to find something more worthy of your attention.
There is no need to apologize: you’ve written a story that you wanted to tell and it is no offense against me that it’s not the story I wanted to read. I think it’s mistaken, though, to consider time spent on things one doesn’t like a waste. I am still interested by the story, I am still attracted by the story’s potential; I just think the choices you’ve made are suboptimal, and believe it’s better to explain to you why I responded that way than fling my hands up in disgust and silently fade away.
I do feel the need to mention I do not expect you to change the story to suit my tastes- if I lend weight to any changes, I expect the most likely would be you deciding to beef up some descriptions. But I hope the feedback is useful even if not reacted to.
Also, if the vampires were trying to keep animals alive, they would suck at it.
Why would vampires put themselves in charge of keeping the animals alive? It’s been established that the Cullens have staggering amounts of money. Just find a small, publicly-traded company that does something related to what you’re looking for, and buy up a controlling share of the stock. Make some unreasonable demands, ratchet up relevant salaries until those demands start sounding very reasonable indeed, then add layer after layer of nondisclosure agreements just in case. Once it’s set up, you never need to visit again. They mail the packaged, refrigerated blood to an entirely separate institution whose sole purpose, in this context at least, is to keep track of your forwarding address.
Routine problems can be handled by professional investigators of the appropriate sort (would Temple Grandin qualify as a witch in this setting?) and severe/bizarre/supernatural problems can be handled by divesting yourself of the shares, starting over from scratch with a different company, and leaving just enough lawyers in your wake to remind those involved that the nondisclosure agreement still applies.
As often as necessary, packages of animal blood arrive in the mail. If someone notices, you mumble something about medical research; if they call you on it, explain in shameful tones that your spouse has a weird fetish, you found a company that sells the stuff, all very humane, it’s expensive but who can put a price on a happy marriage, and (depending on how the situation develops) follow up with either an indignant rant about the rights of consenting adults within the privacy of their own home, or pleading and an appropriate bribe.
I’ve stated elsewhere under this post that I’ve ruled that animal blood is impossible to tolerate when it isn’t fresh. This is to explain the canon fact that the Cullens do not keep any preserved animal blood in their home, which would make immense sense if it were drinkable that way.
Even with that constraint, it would be financially feasible to create a ‘filling station’ within half a night’s walk of any given house, and the technicians still don’t need to see any ‘customers’ face-to-face. Just run the IV pipe through an opaque wall, and set up appointments by calling ahead.
What’s the deeper moral? If you’re vapid, the consequence is spending eternity telepathically beaming love at your husband, who is overcome by emotion and distracts you with the physical manifestation of that love. If you’re thoughtful, the consequence is spending eternity bound to a pile of ash while every day your husband’s ghost eats your liver anew. Why choose to rewrite the Prometheus myth?
Sure, Herakles comes by and kills the eagle. Even the Greeks weren’t that cruel.
The motivation for that objection is that the only non-pathological reason to be rational is it improves your life. So, when a story shows characters making worse decisions and leading worse lives than normal, I find it hard to swallow that they’re behaving more rationally or living more luminously, and I become skeptical of the author’s models of rationality and luminosity.
Just checking: your standard of “than normal”, for Bella, is the plot of canon Twilight, which you have not read, in which canon Bella only survives her many insanely stupid decisions via Plot Armor, and in which canon a confrontation in which the Volturi drew out unprecedented resources in order to attempt to deal with the Cullen family and their witnesses ended with no fighting, no casualties, and no unhappy endings whatsoever except for the part where the overwhelming majority of vampires go on murdering humans several times a month but that’s okay because nobody Bella likes is hurt?
Just checking: your standard of “than normal”, for Bella, is the plot of canon Twilight, which you have not read,
Yes. Because every fanfic, by its nature, invites comparisons with the original before all other works. Even if the reader has only read the fanfic.
My consequentialism may be showing through a bit more than it should, but it seems reasonable to me that someone who reads two stories with the same source will compare their endings, and will make judgments based on those endings. (For reference, the “canon Twilight” I have read is checking the wiki, not slogging through the books.)
If your argument is that canon Twilight was a Promethean story where Bella should have been struck down for stealing Vampirism from the gods and bestowing it to men, and the only reason Aro and company failed to do so is because they’re idiots, I have neither the experience nor the inclination to counter that argument.
Because that’s not what interests me. What interests me is the choice presented: if canon Bella made stupid choices that should have gotten her killed, and our Bella is different, will we make her make smarter choices or have worse luck?
So, when a story shows characters making worse decisions and leading worse lives than normal, I find it hard to swallow that they’re behaving more rationally or living more luminously, and I become skeptical of the author’s models of rationality and luminosity.
Yes, rational agents should WIN. But, as Eliezer explains
Don’t mistake me, and think that I’m talking about the Hollywood Rationality stereotype that rationalists should be selfish or shortsighted. If your utility function has a term in it for others, then win their happiness. If your utility function has a term in it for a million years hence, then win the eon.
If you care about improving the entire world, you just might end up multiplying small probabilities by large utilities, and concluding that you should take chances that are likely to go bad for you personally.
Also, it doesn’t seem right to compare the results of Canon!Bella to Luminous!Bella, who is facing tougher challenges. It wouldn’t be right to say that Frodo’s Jedi powers were actively harmful when his greater problems came from Sauron’s Death Star.
First off, thanks for the link- that was a rather informative read, though I feel it supports my position rather strongly.
If you care about improving the entire world, you just might end up multiplying small probabilities by large utilities, and concluding that you should take chances that are likely to go bad for you personally.
That’s an argument for becoming a cancer researcher instead of an investment banker, and I agree that can be commendable. That’s an argument for signing the Declaration of Independence, and I agree that can be commendable.
That is not an argument for deciding to swim across the Atlantic and kill King George with your bare hands.
My complaints about Luminous!Bella’s personality and plans are twofold: first, her motivations are nonsensical, and second, her plans are idiotic.
I won’t bring up any of my complaints about utilitarianism proper, but just comment that it is entirely self-defeating and out-of-character for Bella to adopt it. What does she have, and what does she want? She and her sole, destined mate are both vulnerable to other vampires but not to age, and she enjoys his presence more than any human can enjoy life. She should want to preserve herself and her mate at almost all costs.
I put in the ‘almost’ because it’s feasible that Bella would prefer some goal to her and Edward’s personal survival. It would make sense for her to sacrifice herself to save Edward (if he didn’t prefer the opposite), say, or to save a massive number of people. We know, though, from her thoughts in Chapter 23, that human Bella explicitly prefers herself to other people. She might change her mind when it’s a large number of people, but I wouldn’t bet on it, and the odds go lower when she turns into a vampire, because her life is then that much more valuable.
So, it is possible that Bella would decide to sacrifice herself to save everyone else, but that’s not something humans (particularly female humans) do very frequently, and it’s not something Bella has a history of doing. It’s also not terribly relatable because few people have a chance to sacrifice themselves to save the world; at most, people can divert their time and resources towards improving their local world. Bella is even more attached to her local world than most humans, and humans are already very attached to it.
Those discussions of motivation all assume Bella has a chance of being effective. If she knew it was her life or 6 billion human lives, I hope she would pick the 6 billion human lives. If she knew it was her life or a one billionth chance of saving 6 billion human lives, why would we expect her to put her life on the line for six lives?
I’m not saying the odds are against her because she’s an idiot, or that it’s unfair for Alicorn to give her a one billionth chance of success- that seems pretty realistic to me. The thing that’s idiotic is that she doesn’t even think that there might not be a way for her to win until she’s already lost. Victorious warriors win first, then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
So, again, the story works as a morality play. If a plan requires you to not talk to anyone else about it, then it’s doomed to failure, and you shouldn’t try. But morality plays strike me as inferior to positive stories: teach that preparation leads to victory by showing someone who prepares and wins, not by showing someone who fails to prepare and loses. They may have lost for a number of reasons.
Also, it doesn’t seem right to compare the results of Canon!Bella to Luminous!Bella, who is facing tougher challenges.
I think the word “tougher” there is obfuscating, because there are changes on several different levels. Everyone is smarter, but Bella has hubris in the Greek sense.
Essentially, this isn’t Frodo having to use his Jedi powers against the Death Star. This is Sauron using his Sith powers to send the Nazgul to kill Frodo before he leaves the Shire. Then Sauron flies the Ring back, and game over.
While realistic, it makes for a poor rationalist story. Especially when Frodo is the rationalist and Sauron is a murderous autocrat.
I keep on bringing up the Greek myths because the Greek myths are horrible life lessons for modern people. “Don’t taunt the gods” is bad advice for scientists. And so when I see a new story forged in the model of a Greek myth, I try and dig deep and figure out why. When I see someone associating their protagonist with hubris- not justified confidence, but hubris in its full sense- I get worried. Why not imagine a world without hubris- a world where cleverness allows you to bypass the gods? Why not imagine people clever enough to see the trap of hubris and ignore it? Why choose hubris?
But morality plays strike me as inferior to positive stories: teach that preparation leads to victory by showing someone who prepares and wins, not by showing someone who fails to prepare and loses.
Maybe Alicorn can give us both: tragic failure here, analysis of the failure in the “media res” introductory chapter, and the positive lesson in the promised sequel. Works for me.
I remember you addressing why a butchering facility is impractical. I don’t recall you addressing why it’s morally acceptable to hunt animals but not morally acceptable to hunt humans; if you did and I missed it, then I apologize sincerely, as that’s solid evidence I wasn’t paying attention.
What I’m talking about is not the Scottish method of making a blood pudding out of a butchered animal, but the Maasai method of bleeding a cow- essentially similar to the European method of milking cows or Canadian method of collecting maple sap. Since they’re doctors, they’d use syringes instead of arrows and plugs, but the basic idea would be the same: have a ‘dairy cow’ whose relevant organ is their marrow, not their udder.
They already considered this, but dismissed it, when it came to humans- they would be able to get the blood without killing, but would lose the benefit of calming animal blood.
(Since I’m thinking about this, the way I’d introduce it is not Bella thinking “wait, why are we killing them when we don’t have to?” or suddenly being interested in animal rights- but as a product of a debate where Bella raises the issue of vegetarianism with a human-eating vampire and the human-eater (particularly if it’s one that buys blood to consume, rather than killing) points out that Bella’s really not any better than the human-eaters or humans in general, and asks why they don’t put their morals into practice and abandon hunting- which Bella might then adopt as a great idea.)
I think the two main things that bother me about her mistakes are that, as far as I can tell, they come from flaws that you introduced and those flaws are unrelatable. Bella’s flaw is that she thinks that assassinating the world government is a good way to go about things (another way to think about this flaw is she considers politics more important than people). What’s the moral, here? Don’t try to assassinate world governments? I already knew that one, thanks.
What’s the deeper moral? If you’re vapid, the consequence is spending eternity telepathically beaming love at your husband, who is overcome by emotion and distracts you with the physical manifestation of that love. If you’re thoughtful, the consequence is spending eternity bound to a pile of ash while every day your husband’s ghost eats your liver anew. Why choose to rewrite the Prometheus myth?
The reasons I give for not having a butchering facility apply to any other facility that would keep domestic animals. The animals would still need a place to live that would be hard to pick up and move when the vampires got suspiciously youthful-looking for their claimed ages. Also, if the vampires were trying to keep animals alive, they would suck at it. The poor cows would die of stress from having to be around them.
As for your other criticisms: I’m sorry you aren’t enjoying the story I have chosen to tell. That’s a pity. I suggest you don’t waste more of your time on a story you don’t like. Hopefully you will be able to find something more worthy of your attention.
True- but one can buy animal blood much more easily than human blood. As far as I can tell, the sites I found googling only require a credit card, and your only contact will be the FedEx deliveryperson. The prices (about ~$150 to get as much sheep’s blood as it would take to fill a person) seem like they would be nowhere near troubling for vampires, and a front corporation doing medical research would be trivial to create.
Indeed, if Bella’s primary objection to vampires consuming blood is that it has to come from people, why not sell packaged blood to vampires? They still get the tasty blood they prefer, and people don’t have to die for it. They miss out on the calming effect, and more importantly miss out on the hunting, but I imagine there must be some vampires out there who don’t live to hunt, or would prefer being able to reside more permanently by hunting less frequently.
It’s possible anyone willing to take that option would already be taking that option- but people are more willing to make changes the easier you make those changes. Again, directly relevant experience for people- “I’m going to help my neighbors switch to vegetarianism by grocery shopping and teaching recipes” over “I’m going to murder Jim Purdue.”
There is no need to apologize: you’ve written a story that you wanted to tell and it is no offense against me that it’s not the story I wanted to read. I think it’s mistaken, though, to consider time spent on things one doesn’t like a waste. I am still interested by the story, I am still attracted by the story’s potential; I just think the choices you’ve made are suboptimal, and believe it’s better to explain to you why I responded that way than fling my hands up in disgust and silently fade away.
I do feel the need to mention I do not expect you to change the story to suit my tastes- if I lend weight to any changes, I expect the most likely would be you deciding to beef up some descriptions. But I hope the feedback is useful even if not reacted to.
Why would vampires put themselves in charge of keeping the animals alive? It’s been established that the Cullens have staggering amounts of money. Just find a small, publicly-traded company that does something related to what you’re looking for, and buy up a controlling share of the stock. Make some unreasonable demands, ratchet up relevant salaries until those demands start sounding very reasonable indeed, then add layer after layer of nondisclosure agreements just in case. Once it’s set up, you never need to visit again. They mail the packaged, refrigerated blood to an entirely separate institution whose sole purpose, in this context at least, is to keep track of your forwarding address.
Routine problems can be handled by professional investigators of the appropriate sort (would Temple Grandin qualify as a witch in this setting?) and severe/bizarre/supernatural problems can be handled by divesting yourself of the shares, starting over from scratch with a different company, and leaving just enough lawyers in your wake to remind those involved that the nondisclosure agreement still applies.
As often as necessary, packages of animal blood arrive in the mail. If someone notices, you mumble something about medical research; if they call you on it, explain in shameful tones that your spouse has a weird fetish, you found a company that sells the stuff, all very humane, it’s expensive but who can put a price on a happy marriage, and (depending on how the situation develops) follow up with either an indignant rant about the rights of consenting adults within the privacy of their own home, or pleading and an appropriate bribe.
I’ve stated elsewhere under this post that I’ve ruled that animal blood is impossible to tolerate when it isn’t fresh. This is to explain the canon fact that the Cullens do not keep any preserved animal blood in their home, which would make immense sense if it were drinkable that way.
Even with that constraint, it would be financially feasible to create a ‘filling station’ within half a night’s walk of any given house, and the technicians still don’t need to see any ‘customers’ face-to-face. Just run the IV pipe through an opaque wall, and set up appointments by calling ahead.
The story isn’t finished yet...
Sure, Herakles comes by and kills the eagle. Even the Greeks weren’t that cruel.
The motivation for that objection is that the only non-pathological reason to be rational is it improves your life. So, when a story shows characters making worse decisions and leading worse lives than normal, I find it hard to swallow that they’re behaving more rationally or living more luminously, and I become skeptical of the author’s models of rationality and luminosity.
Just checking: your standard of “than normal”, for Bella, is the plot of canon Twilight, which you have not read, in which canon Bella only survives her many insanely stupid decisions via Plot Armor, and in which canon a confrontation in which the Volturi drew out unprecedented resources in order to attempt to deal with the Cullen family and their witnesses ended with no fighting, no casualties, and no unhappy endings whatsoever except for the part where the overwhelming majority of vampires go on murdering humans several times a month but that’s okay because nobody Bella likes is hurt?
Yes. Because every fanfic, by its nature, invites comparisons with the original before all other works. Even if the reader has only read the fanfic.
My consequentialism may be showing through a bit more than it should, but it seems reasonable to me that someone who reads two stories with the same source will compare their endings, and will make judgments based on those endings. (For reference, the “canon Twilight” I have read is checking the wiki, not slogging through the books.)
If your argument is that canon Twilight was a Promethean story where Bella should have been struck down for stealing Vampirism from the gods and bestowing it to men, and the only reason Aro and company failed to do so is because they’re idiots, I have neither the experience nor the inclination to counter that argument.
Because that’s not what interests me. What interests me is the choice presented: if canon Bella made stupid choices that should have gotten her killed, and our Bella is different, will we make her make smarter choices or have worse luck?
Yes, rational agents should WIN. But, as Eliezer explains
If you care about improving the entire world, you just might end up multiplying small probabilities by large utilities, and concluding that you should take chances that are likely to go bad for you personally.
Also, it doesn’t seem right to compare the results of Canon!Bella to Luminous!Bella, who is facing tougher challenges. It wouldn’t be right to say that Frodo’s Jedi powers were actively harmful when his greater problems came from Sauron’s Death Star.
First off, thanks for the link- that was a rather informative read, though I feel it supports my position rather strongly.
That’s an argument for becoming a cancer researcher instead of an investment banker, and I agree that can be commendable. That’s an argument for signing the Declaration of Independence, and I agree that can be commendable.
That is not an argument for deciding to swim across the Atlantic and kill King George with your bare hands.
My complaints about Luminous!Bella’s personality and plans are twofold: first, her motivations are nonsensical, and second, her plans are idiotic.
I won’t bring up any of my complaints about utilitarianism proper, but just comment that it is entirely self-defeating and out-of-character for Bella to adopt it. What does she have, and what does she want? She and her sole, destined mate are both vulnerable to other vampires but not to age, and she enjoys his presence more than any human can enjoy life. She should want to preserve herself and her mate at almost all costs.
I put in the ‘almost’ because it’s feasible that Bella would prefer some goal to her and Edward’s personal survival. It would make sense for her to sacrifice herself to save Edward (if he didn’t prefer the opposite), say, or to save a massive number of people. We know, though, from her thoughts in Chapter 23, that human Bella explicitly prefers herself to other people. She might change her mind when it’s a large number of people, but I wouldn’t bet on it, and the odds go lower when she turns into a vampire, because her life is then that much more valuable.
So, it is possible that Bella would decide to sacrifice herself to save everyone else, but that’s not something humans (particularly female humans) do very frequently, and it’s not something Bella has a history of doing. It’s also not terribly relatable because few people have a chance to sacrifice themselves to save the world; at most, people can divert their time and resources towards improving their local world. Bella is even more attached to her local world than most humans, and humans are already very attached to it.
Those discussions of motivation all assume Bella has a chance of being effective. If she knew it was her life or 6 billion human lives, I hope she would pick the 6 billion human lives. If she knew it was her life or a one billionth chance of saving 6 billion human lives, why would we expect her to put her life on the line for six lives?
I’m not saying the odds are against her because she’s an idiot, or that it’s unfair for Alicorn to give her a one billionth chance of success- that seems pretty realistic to me. The thing that’s idiotic is that she doesn’t even think that there might not be a way for her to win until she’s already lost. Victorious warriors win first, then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
So, again, the story works as a morality play. If a plan requires you to not talk to anyone else about it, then it’s doomed to failure, and you shouldn’t try. But morality plays strike me as inferior to positive stories: teach that preparation leads to victory by showing someone who prepares and wins, not by showing someone who fails to prepare and loses. They may have lost for a number of reasons.
I think the word “tougher” there is obfuscating, because there are changes on several different levels. Everyone is smarter, but Bella has hubris in the Greek sense.
Essentially, this isn’t Frodo having to use his Jedi powers against the Death Star. This is Sauron using his Sith powers to send the Nazgul to kill Frodo before he leaves the Shire. Then Sauron flies the Ring back, and game over.
While realistic, it makes for a poor rationalist story. Especially when Frodo is the rationalist and Sauron is a murderous autocrat.
I keep on bringing up the Greek myths because the Greek myths are horrible life lessons for modern people. “Don’t taunt the gods” is bad advice for scientists. And so when I see a new story forged in the model of a Greek myth, I try and dig deep and figure out why. When I see someone associating their protagonist with hubris- not justified confidence, but hubris in its full sense- I get worried. Why not imagine a world without hubris- a world where cleverness allows you to bypass the gods? Why not imagine people clever enough to see the trap of hubris and ignore it? Why choose hubris?
Maybe Alicorn can give us both: tragic failure here, analysis of the failure in the “media res” introductory chapter, and the positive lesson in the promised sequel. Works for me.