Future Tech Advice and Assistance Thread [O.O.C.]

[The Akasha Colony]

Deployment of a planet-destroying weapon, if any such can exist, will probably be beneath the moral lower bound for most civilizations that can be called thus; hence, I think it unrealistic anyway that such a weapons should be used.

That presumes that 'most' spacefaring nations, which have very little if anything in common biologically, culturally, politically, or historically, will somehow subscribe to a generally similar code of morality. There is no reason to believe this is true IC.

[Themiclesia]

-rescinded-

[The Akasha Colony]

That presumes that 'most' spacefaring nations, which have very little if anything in common biologically, culturally, politically, or historically, will somehow subscribe to a generally similar code of morality. There is no reason to believe this is true IC.

Νο, and it is my OoC opinion, which is (as I observe) the subject of this thread.

Your OOC opinion presumes that IC, these spacefaring states will for some reason find it morally objectionable to use planetary-scale weapons of mass destruction. There is no reason to assume this is true, nor that this 'moral lower bound' must somehow apply to all collectives seeking to call themselves 'civilizations.'

An argument can be made that they will not be common due to their energy inefficiency; it is not necessary to completely destroy the planet in order to render it uninhabitable or to extinguish all life on its surface. But this has nothing to do with morality.

[Themiclesia]

-rescinded-

[Santheres]

Your OOC opinion presumes that IC, these spacefaring states will for some reason find it morally objectionable to use planetary-scale weapons of mass destruction. There is no reason to assume this is true, nor that this 'moral lower bound' must somehow apply to all collectives seeking to call themselves 'civilizations.'

An argument can be made that they will not be common due to their energy inefficiency; it is not necessary to completely destroy the planet in order to render it uninhabitable or to extinguish all life on its surface. But this has nothing to do with morality.

I have been under the impression that a planet-destroying weapon destroyed the whole of the planet. But I presuppose that as members of a civilization tend against destruction, such weapons will be against their logical though if any such faculty exists.

If the destruction of a planet or even an entire species can result in the greater good, there are some who take to it if possible and I for one would not consider them to be "uncivilized" for doing so if the greater good really could be well-argued. It might be distasteful but if it was the only real option...

[Themiclesia]

-rescinded-

[Yalos]

Your OOC opinion presumes that IC, these spacefaring states will for some reason find it morally objectionable to use planetary-scale weapons of mass destruction. There is no reason to assume this is true, nor that this 'moral lower bound' must somehow apply to all collectives seeking to call themselves 'civilizations.'

An argument can be made that they will not be common due to their energy inefficiency; it is not necessary to completely destroy the planet in order to render it uninhabitable or to extinguish all life on its surface. But this has nothing to do with morality.

I have been under the impression that a planet-destroying weapon destroyed the whole of the planet. But I presuppose that as members of a civilization tend against destruction, such weapons will be against their logical though if any such faculty exists.

Stop assuming shit. Really.
War is not civillization building. War is war. War means you kill things to not get killed. Thus, war could very well be looked at in a different light than being members of a civillization.
Also, as for life being priceless....that really is your opinion. Not even humans agree on that, let alone independently developing star empires (see, Josef Stalin)

[Themiclesia]

I have been under the impression that a planet-destroying weapon destroyed the whole of the planet. But I presuppose that as members of a civilization tend against destruction, such weapons will be against their logical though if any such faculty exists.

Stop assuming shit. Really.
War is not civillization building. War is war. War means you kill things to not get killed. Thus, war could very well be looked at in a different light than being members of a civillization.
Also, as for life being priceless....that really is your opinion. Not even humans agree on that, let alone independently developing star empires (see, Josef Stalin)

War is the state whereby an individual is willing to kill, not that the individual seeks to kill, for that would be manslaughter.

And also, Yalos, you have yet to post your reply to my civil service pay chart. May I assume that you have regained access to your computer since November?

[Yalos]

Stop assuming shit. Really.
War is not civillization building. War is war. War means you kill things to not get killed. Thus, war could very well be looked at in a different light than being members of a civillization.
Also, as for life being priceless....that really is your opinion. Not even humans agree on that, let alone independently developing star empires (see, Josef Stalin)

War is the state whereby an individual is willing to kill, not that the individual seeks to kill, for that would be manslaughter.

And also, Yalos, you have yet to post your reply to my civil service pay chart. May I assume that you have regained access to your computer since November?

I forgot about that. Do you still want that? Lmao, I'll go search it up.
Also, Themisclesia, let me put it like this.
The state is capable of and quite willing to commit mass murder and use weapons of mass destruction to further its needs. See Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or Stalin.
So, why would a state not be willing to use a planet buster? Huerdae, for one, is more than happy to nuke the living daylights out of entire systems (assuming I've done my reading properly). Just because it might not make sense to you, does not mean it wont make sense to other people. Not everybody is guided by flimsy human morality....considering that not everybody here is human, and not everybody here is from earth.

[Themiclesia]

War is the state whereby an individual is willing to kill, not that the individual seeks to kill, for that would be manslaughter.

And also, Yalos, you have yet to post your reply to my civil service pay chart. May I assume that you have regained access to your computer since November?

I forgot about that. Do you still want that? Lmao, I'll go search it up.
Also, Themisclesia, let me put it like this.
The state is capable of and quite willing to commit mass murder and use weapons of mass destruction to further its needs. See Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or Stalin.
So, why would a state not be willing to use a planet buster? Huerdae, for one, is more than happy to nuke the living daylights out of entire systems (assuming I've done my reading properly). Just because it might not make sense to you, does not mean it wont make sense to other people. Not everybody is guided by flimsy human morality....considering that not everybody here is human, and not everybody here is from earth.

I have made it quite clear that it is my OoC opinion that I speak. And yes, I do still want it.

[Santheres]

If the destruction of a planet or even an entire species can result in the greater good, there are some who take to it if possible and I for one would not consider them to be "uncivilized" for doing so if the greater good really could be well-argued. It might be distasteful but if it was the only real option...

Such an argument would be stretched quite far, because life is priceless.

Life is worth as much as another life. If a savage ape-descended species is exterminating other species left and right and we've tried to stop them to no avail, then the only recourse might to exterminate them back. The lives saved by doing this are likely to vastly exceed those lost, since they probably wouldn't stop their xenophobic jihad... well, basically ever; and we would stop after destroying just them.

Unless you think that human life is worth more than an alien's.

And considering this is a common NS trope, at the very least...

[Themiclesia]

-rescinded-

[Santheres]

Life is worth as much as another life. If a savage ape-descended species is exterminating other species left and right and we've tried to stop them to no avail, then the only recourse might to exterminate them back. The lives saved by doing this are likely to vastly exceed those lost, since they probably wouldn't stop their xenophobic jihad... well, basically ever; and we would stop after destroying just them.

Unless you think that human life is worth more than an alien's.

And considering this is a common NS trope, at the very least...

Projected threats, however realistic, can't be compared to life in value. Exterminating a planet of theirs won't bring our dead back, and there's no good to be done on that regard to exterminate their planet.

No one said anything about bringing our dead back to life. But if we can prevent further death, why wouldn't we? Why wouldn't you use any means necessary to stop what is currently happening? It's not a "projected threat" if they're murdering as we speak.

So, what is the moral thing to do when diplomacy has failed? War in which similar numbers die but at least it's more distributed? And when war doesn't even slow them down? What do you do? Let it happen, clearly, because "life is precious" - but then, it sounds like only the perpetrators' lives are actually precious since you're willing to do nothing to stop it. This is extremely short-sighted idealism that has no place in a discussion of how reality would actually work given such situations and technology as are present in this community. Which, I will add, is sort of what this thread is actually for.

[Yalos]

And we all know this. And how exactly is your personal OOC opinion relevant to us, if, as you admit, it merely is your own opinion? If we wanted a philosophy lecture, we would read a book or go to lecture or whatever.

No offense, but as interesting as your own views are, they dont really add much depth to the discuss at hand and come off like something you would find in the general forums. Thus, I would ask you to actually defend your argument against planetary busters with something that isn't "your own opinion," and with something substantial. If you could develop a reasonable explanation as to why planetary busters are impractical, good and dapper. But if you just want to show off your own philisophical tinkerings...that isn't nearly as valid, in my eyes.

[Themiclesia]

-rescinded-

[Santheres]

I could not disagree with that naive assessment more.

Well, as fun as amateur philosophy hour is, it's not on topic, as Yalos stated earlier and I tried to hint at, myself. Please stop - it contributes to nothing.

[Themiclesia]

-rescinded-

[Themiclesia]

-rescinded-

[New Tauri Republic]

Post centent deleted so as not to contribute to arguement.

[Kyrusia]

Without condoning either side of this argument, I would advise that this be taken elsewhere. Either to the FT Argument Thread (which exists specifically for this purpose), or to one of the available IRC channels. At this point, this is not contributing to the purpose of this thread, and has devolved into differing perspectives on the basis of the morality and ethical use of certain weapons systems - not the advisement as to their use or construction (as this is this threads purpose), but as to the over-arching philosophies in regards to that use.

That is beyond the purview of this thread. You are free to discuss the ethics and morality insofar as it is understood that it is within the realm of In-Character actions. To me, certain members of this argument appear to be discussing things based not upon how one might understand said concepts in an In-Character fashion based upon their Out-of-Character grasp of the fictitious world, but are discussing things based purely upon their own Out-of-Character ethical perspective. Again, as Santh and others have stated, such is beyond the purview of this thread.

Thank you.

[Steel Union]

So..... how 'bout that space weather?

What kind of FTL drives does everyone use?

[New Tauri Republic]

Would a dyson bubble, arranged only above and below the orbital plane make it more feasible?

Would the star system originally technically being a binary star system due to having a bron dwarf sized nuetron star give them the resoucrces to make a partial dyson bubble?
Possibly by doing scifi "magic" aka technobabble to mine away the dwarf star until it is completely gone, and putting said material into a dyson net work?

Please remember that technically there was originally two star systems, and when the space warp was created, the matter that was not anhilated had to be moved into stable orbits to prevent a collision. The nuetron star was the original star of the system they ended up warping around so to speak. So technically they had/ have two star systems of materials to work with, something I just realized is a consequence of the spacewarp backstory...

[Daskoxian]

So..... how 'bout that space weather?

What king of FTL drives does everyone use?

What would be considered the king of FTL drives?

(I know Steel meant "kind", but still it's an interesting question)

[Themiclesia]

Without condoning either side of this argument, I would advise that this be taken elsewhere. Either to the FT Argument Thread (which exists specifically for this purpose), or to one of the available IRC channels. At this point, this is not contributing to the purpose of this thread, and has devolved into differing perspectives on the basis of the morality and ethical use of certain weapons systems - not the advisement as to their use or construction (as this is this threads purpose), but as to the over-arching philosophies in regards to that use.

That is beyond the purview of this thread. You are free to discuss the ethics and morality insofar as it is understood that it is within the realm of In-Character actions. To me, certain members of this argument appear to be discussing things based not upon how one might understand said concepts in an In-Character fashion based upon their Out-of-Character grasp of the fictitious world, but are discussing things based purely upon their own Out-of-Character ethical perspective. Again, as Santh and others have stated, such is beyond the purview of this thread.

Thank you.

Likewise, your ungrammatical constructions.

On the other hand, I use a fan-based FTL drive, though the necessity of personal presence in a given locale is greatly decreased already.

[Steel Union]

So..... how 'bout that space weather?

What king of FTL drives does everyone use?

What would be considered the king of FTL drives?

(I know Steel meant "kind", but still it's an interesting question)

Fuck.

Fixed. Though I'd imagine the King of FTL drives would require no charge time, minimal power, and jump straight from one point to another, accurately, with no distance limitations, automatically match relative velocity at the destination, and not have issues warping into or out of gravity wells or atmosphere.