Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Radio Controlled]

The People's Republic of Glorious Steve.

[syvarris]

Logical response:  The UWM is bad, and therefore needs to be replaced.  It is morally right to do so. (We know this because Steve said so)  To replace them, we'll need soldiers to fight.  These soldier will sometimes die in pain, or live their entire lives in a robotic shell incapable of feeling.  Also, any of their loved ones will probably never see them again, due to Jump Point time lag.

Sods, however, don't really feel pain, have no loved ones, and don't care that they are incapable of feeling when robots.  They're also more effective than a human soldier, meaning we need to use less of them.  Also, they're constantly *perfectly* happy, at all times.  Therefore, replacing the human soldiers with them will overall deduce sadness.


Funny response:  Call three flesh sods into your room.  Tell sod-1 to kill itself using no muscles aside from it's knee and elbow muscles.  Tell sod-2&3 to walk ten feet away from sod-1.  Now, tell them that they must move to sod-1 and then prevent it from killing itself, while using no muscles below their own neck to do so.

Watch.

[Comrade P.]

The People's Republic of Glorious Steve.

PRGS
Purges.

Union of Socialistic Steve's Republics, for sake of acronym.

[Radio Controlled]

The People's Republic of Glorious Steve.

PRGS
Purges.

Union of Socialistic Steve's Republics, for sake of acronym.

This man is on top of things.

[Nikitian]

@RC
Hmmm. I see. So you prefer to see it in absolute values. I can work with that.

@syvarris
Well, that's quite more in-depth, thank you.



Though I'll still ask a similar but smaller question: Are sods 'people'? As in, framlings (or at least ramen)?
Or are they cattle, 'living tools' and exist so far only because we benefit from their work and thus brought them into existence of servitude as their creators and masters (and they should be thankful for that)?

[Radio Controlled]

@RC
Hmmm. I see. So you prefer to see it in absolute values. I can work with that.

@syvarris
Well, that's quite more in-depth, thank you.

For the purpose of the game, sure. What syv said (that using sods means we can use less real people) was kinda implied, but even if that weren't true, the overall analysis stays the same.

Of course, whether Y is indeed greater than X is another matter. One could say it might be better to let things run their course, or that everything will end one day either way, so best not to interfere in any way that's negative.

Though I'll still ask a similar but smaller question: Are sods 'people'? As in, framlings (or at least ramen)?
Or are they cattle, 'living tools' and exist so far only because we benefit from their work and thus brought them into existence of servitude as their creators and masters (and they should be thankful for that)?

Are arbiters of peace (the most advanced silicon ai we can build, and based of of a real person) people?

[Toaster]

Though I'll still ask a similar but smaller question: Are sods 'people'? As in, framlings (or at least ramen)?
Or are they cattle, 'living tools' and exist so far only because we benefit from their work and thus brought them into existence of servitude as their creators and masters (and they should be thankful for that)?

Spoiler: ? (click to show/hide)

Is Steve a person?

[Comrade P.]

This discussion verges to cyberpunk problematics dangerously.

[Pancaek]

Though I'll still ask a similar but smaller question: Are sods 'people'? As in, framlings (or at least ramen)?
Or are they cattle, 'living tools' and exist so far only because we benefit from their work and thus brought them into existence of servitude as their creators and masters (and they should be thankful for that)?

Doesn't matter. Sods, soldiers, criminals, civilians. We will drown the universe in their blood and choke the UWM with their entrails. Because we work for glorious Steve, blessed be his rule. And in our occupation there is no right or wrong, only the hope that the future might vindicate our actions.

[Nikitian]

On Arbiters, Steve:
Well, they're wetware AIs, and I've already been lobbying treating wetware AIs as 'people' IC. 


The problem with sods is that they're human. Well, genetically modified, but not even that distinctly. But they don't have much of their own will (or intelligence, for that matter).
Actually, I am now sure this question (generalised) must have been raised in-universe as well, when the era of rabid gene-altering was undergo. So we might want to ask Piecewise on the "setting opinion" on that matter as well. 

Though I'll still ask a similar but smaller question: Are sods 'people'? As in, framlings (or at least ramen)?
Or are they cattle, 'living tools' and exist so far only because we benefit from their work and thus brought them into existence of servitude as their creators and masters (and they should be thankful for that)?

Doesn't matter. Sods, soldiers, criminals, civilians. We will drown the universe in their blood and choke the UWM with their entrails. Because we work for glorious Steve, blessed be his rule. And in our occupation there is no right or wrong, only the hope that the future might vindicate our actions.

Ahh, now that's a worthy answer! I can totally work with that! 

[Harry Baldman]

Is Steve a person?

Steve is a lot of people, I think. Or at least constituted from a lot of people. So probably more of a person than the average convict.

[Radio Controlled]

Perhaps we can compare the use of sods to the current day use of lab animals, who sometimes die in our advance of science and medicine. Do we breed and use them because we enjoy their suffering and pain, because we could do without it but just enjoy seeing the little things squirm? Or do we do it because they are the best alternative currently available, and because not using them outright would have very undesirable consequences (in this example, no more new medicine. In our case, losing the war, and thus, everything).



Also, arbiters use full silicon brains, modeled after that of a human. Not wetware.

[syvarris]

@Nik

As my second example pointed out, I don't think sods are people.  Because their souls can't be harvested for use as manipulator fuel.  Because they don't have any real intelligence, opinions, personality, or variance in emotion.

They are living tools, for a given definition of 'life'.  I would define a cat, or hell, the fleas living on that cat, as more 'alive' and 'people-like' than a sod.  A flea, at least, seems to be capable of fear: an emotion.  A sod is little more than an animated corpse, really.  There is no ghost behind those dead, ruminant eyes.

Furthermore, what if they are?  What if a sod's happiness is morally just as important as a normal human's?  What does that even mean?  We can clone them, so under standard definitions of 'morality' it would be morally wrong to not produce sods; every sod we make is just adding happiness.

[Nikitian]

@RC
Well, however much we can love animals, they are clearly not humans (not to delve into the inter-species treatment, of course).
The problem is, sods are humans. Apart from their physical prowess and military skill they might be poor idiot children. So are these 'weaponised disabled kids' people, or not? And, if not, is that because they are created, or because they are mentally impaired? That is what I am asking.
(I can work and live with them being, with all regret, considered little but lesser species. I just want that to be said clearly.)


Also, silicon brains? Cool, I was under impression they used wetware. Oh well. Not the question to tackle today.

@syv
Yeah, thank you for spelling that out. I needed something to work with when I finally get to creating new species of humans if I want to research flesh-sorcery as I work out my character's ethics.

[Radio Controlled]

The point was more that we use them, because not doing so is even worse. Whether 'them' is animals, people, or something else is secondary for that argument.

I'll agree though that is indeed very absolute, which is why I used the term 'moral calculus' in the beginnig.

As for your actual question: perhaps they are people, but it doesn't really matter if or if not they are, they'll be used regardless of what label we choose to give them. Yes, this does imply that, if we ever need to start forcefully conscripting regular people, there's a chance we will.

I think I personally would put them on the level of people born with severe mental handicaps, or those forever lost in coma. People, but lacking some very essential things that are often considered making one human.